Brentano and his Neo-Scholastic roots

David Torrijos-Castrillejo
Universidad Eclesistica San Dmaso (Madrid, Spain)
Abstract
Although they are often referred to, the Scholastic roots of Brentanos thinking have not yet
been studied with the attention they deserve. Among the few publications which consider this
matter in depth topic, an article by Mnch stands out. In it, he defends that the Aristotelian
studies of Brentano are inspired by the German Neo-Scholastic movement. He even claims that
his subsequent works are influenced by it. However, Mnch presents the Neo-Scholastic
tendency as an ultra-conservative and reactionary program against modernity. Now, such a
description makes almost inexplicable that Brentano, who began his education in such a
context, could have developed a wholly personal and independent philosophy; especially if we
admit with Mnch that the Catholic character of Brentanos philosophical project would
remain substantially unchanged during his life. In order to approach this framework more
objectively, I propose to pay attention in my intervention particularly to F.J. Clemens, who was
the Neo-Scholastic teacher who most influenced the young Brentano. It is true that Clemens
puts faith above reason and affirms that any conclusion obtained through the power of reason
must be discarded when it contradicts faith. However, this is not an Ultramontane innovation
but simply the traditional theological point of view as, for instance, exposed by Aquinas. He
also argues that St. Thomas should be followed as a guide to orient oneself in rational inquiry.
Nevertheless, he doesnt want to understand philosophy as a foolish repetition of Aquinas
claims; on the contrary, he proposes rather an intelligent use of tradition, which allows us to
delve deeper into philosophical truth. For this very reason, he does not discard modernity or
condemn it altogether. In contrast, he appreciates the true when it is present in modern
philosophies. This perspective is also reflected in some of the early writings of Brentano, who
showed from the beginning of his work a great detachment from those members of the Neo-
Scholastic movement who made use of St. Thomas in order to avoid personal thinking. On the
contrary, it is possible that the spirit of love for truth and confidence in the power of reason
defended by Clemensfollowing Aquinascould have contributed to the development of an
independent philosophical system accomplished by Brentano.

1. Introduction

For the moment, the Scholastic roots of Brentanos thought have not received much
scholarly attention. One of the few exceptions is its appearance in an article published in
both French and German by Mnch, in which the author deals with Brentanos
reception of Aristotle.1 In order to understand the Scholastic context of Brentano, he
gives special importance to one of the most significant teachers of the young Brentano,
F.J. Clemens, who was engaged in the journal Der Katholik. In this enterprise, Mnch

1
See Dieter Mnch, Franz Brentano und die katholische Aristoteles-Rezeption, in Phenomenology and
Analysis. Essays in Central European Philosophy, ed. Arkadiusz Chrudzimski, Wolfgang Huemer
(Frankfurt: Ontos, 2004), pp. 159-198; id., Franz Brentano et la rception catholique dAristote au XIXe
sicle, in Aristote au XIXe sicle, ed. Denis Thouard (Villeneuve dAscq: Presses Universitaires du
Septentrion, 2004), pp. 231-248.

1
finds a Catholic project of cultural divulgation, which is essential in forming a proper
understanding of Brentanos approach to Aristotelian studies. The main objective of this
project would have been the defence of the theses of Thomas Aquinas, who personified
a perfect synthesis of Aristotelianism and Catholicism. Aquinas also represented a
perfect summit of human knowledge, impossible to be overcome. With him, the
progress of human thought would have ended and therefore the Neo-Scholastics would
have had only to defend his system from the attacks of the modern philosophers.2
However, I believe that this description of Clemens purposes is deficient. For this
reason, I would like to pay attention in these pages to his thinking on this matter and
consider how he may have influenced Brentanos views.

2. F.J. Clemens and German Neo-Scholasticism

Thanks to the intellectual environments in which Brentanos family moved, he

came into contact with some of the most representative exponents of German Neo-
Scholasticism from a young age. Among the most noteworthy was his teacher Franz
Jakob Clemens, who, in the opinion of Stckl, was the initiator of this intellectual
movement. 3 Brentano studied some years with him, until his health problems
prematurely separated him from the side of his young disciple, who intended to write a
dissertation about Surez under his direction.
Clemens may have directed Brentano to seek in Aquinas a master who could guide
him in the times of intellectual decay in whichaccording to his own testimonyhe
would have lived; Aquinas, in turn, would have taken him by the hand to a correct

2
Dies fhrt zu einem Konzept einer philosophia perennis, das heit zu einer Konzeption, die
Wissenschaft und Philosophie nicht mehr als historisch bedingt betrachtet, wie dies fr die Deutsche
Theologie charakteristisch war. Zwar gab es bis zu Thomas von Aquin eine Entwicklung, doch diese ist
zu einem Abschluss gekommen. Man kann daher die im Katholik vertretene Auffassung durch das
Schlagwort vom Ende der Geschichte der Philosophie charakterisieren. Danach besteht die Aufgabe fr
die gegenwrtigen Philosophen nicht darin, ihre Zeit in Gedanken zu fassen, sondern darin, sich das im
Groen und Ganzen durch Thomas von Aquin vollendete aristotelisch-katholische System anzueignen
(Mnch, Franz Brentano und die katholische Aristoteles-Rezeption, p. 176).
3
See Albert Stckl, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie (Mainz: Kirchheim, 1870), p. 836. About
Clemens, see Antonio Piolanti, Un Pioniere della filosofia cristiana della met dellOttocento: Franz
Jakob Clemens ( 1862) (Citt del Vaticano: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 1988); Peter Walter, Die
neuscholastische Philosophie im deutschsprachigen Raum, in Christliche Philosophie im katholischen
Denken des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, ed. Emerich Coreth, Walter M. Neidl, Georg Pfligersdorffer, 2.
Band (Graz: Styria, 1988), pp. 134-139; Paul Richard Blum, Franz Jakob Clemens e la lettura
ultramontanistica di Bruno, in Brunus Redivivus. Momenti della fortuna di Giordano Bruno nel XIX
secolo, ed. Eugenio Canone (Pisa/Roma: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, 1998), pp. 67-103.

2
understanding of Aristotle, the teacher by whom he himself was guided.4 We have an
eloquent testimony of the admiration that Brentano professed for Clemens in a letter to
his aunt written at that time (1859):

St. Thomas and philosophy have brought me to the region of Mnster and, indeed, it has
not been in vain [] Schlter is a kind and very wise man []. However, as a teacher I
prefer Clemens who is more scholastic, while Schlter is more mystical. Clemens is, in
all respects, a teacher according to my wishes. He joins in himself insight and erudition,
character and the strength of the faith with impartiality; in addition to this, the courage
with which he defies all the prejudices of our time and of the schools deserves the
maximum respect. I am sincerely convinced of this, and I do not think that I am
influenced by anything, not even by his great friendship with me, which, in fact,
surpasses all my expectations. He often walks for a long time with me and another young
man []. Of course, during these walks we discuss only philosophy, so much so that
almost each step means a philosophical step forward; therefore, they are as instructive as
the classes.
Prof. Clemens has St. Thomas in the body like no one else, so that he can frighten
anyone, even if he would have the devil in the body. I am gladand I could not tell you
how muchof having found in him a teacher who, more than all the others I had up to
now, arouses in me reverence and confidence.5

His very own words confirm to us that, if we want to know the influence of Neo-
Scholasticism on Brentano, we must focus particularly on this author. Certainly,
Clemens spoke in several of his publications about a therapy for the confusion that
affected the philosophy of his time: the reconstruction of a thought inspired by Aquinas
and permeated by Catholic faith. He sustained the Thomist doctrine of the harmony
between faith and philosophy: that no philosophical proposition could be admitted when
it is contrary to divine Revelation, because, as long as faith depends on Gods

4
Ich hatte mich zunchst als Lehrling an einen Meister anzuschlieen und konnte, in einer Zeit
klglichsten Verfalles der Philosophie geboren, keinen besseren als den alten Aristoteles finden, zu
dessen nicht immer leichtem Verstndnis mir oft Thomas v. A. dienen mte (Franz Brentano, Brief 21.
Mrz 1916, citado por: Oskar Kraus, Franz Brentano. Zur Kenntnis seines Lebens und seiner Lehre. Mit
Beitrgen von Carl Stumpf und Edmund Husserl [Mnchen: Beck, 1919], p. 31). Also Aquinas had to
take Aristotle as a master: Der Lehrling mu sich an einen Meister anschlieen (Franz Brentano,
Thomas von Aquin, Neue Freie Presse 15683 [18/4/1908], p. 5).
5
Franz Brentano, Nachlass von Savigny, quoted by Antonio Russo, Franz Brentano. Heinrich Denifle.
Un carteggio inedito (Roma: Studium, 2014), pp. 31-32. All translations are mine.

3
testimony, He cannot be expected to deceive us.6 This view agrees with the traditional
Catholic view of the relationship between faith and reason and, in fact, it does not mean
an innovation. However, it has been considered by Mnch as the imposition of an
official Catholic philosophy, that would be personified in Aquinas.7 In this way,
Clemens would be attacking the freedom of reason and preventing its spontaneous
search. However, nothing could be further from Clemens purpose. Indeed, one
characteristic of his proposal that should not be overlooked is his opposition to
traditionalism. This movement holds that human reason is incapable of attaining even
the most basic truths about God, metaphysics and ethics, so that only tradition,
transmitted by faith, could provide the knowledge to carry out a good human life. In
such a way, the only possible philosophy would be based on Christian dogma. In an
important article, regarded by Mnch as the foundational manifesto of Neo-
Scholasticism, 8 Clemens critiques traditionalism in order to defend human reason,
which is created by God with sufficient capacity to achieve such knowledge.9 Neither
theology nor faith should have any fear regarding the development of the sciences or of
philosophy, since all authentic knowledge comes from God who cannot contradict
Himself. Clemens remembers that contempt of reason is proper to the conception of
faith held by Luther but it does not belong to the Catholic view.
In another writing of the same period, he also critiques traditionalism, since such a
point of view could be linked to Aquinas only by ignorance of traditionalism or by
ignorance of Thomass opinion, which is exposed by Clemens as follow:

St. Thomas distinguishes philosophy from theology because that one is founded on reason
and this one on faith; that one on the self-evident principles of intellect, this one proceeds
from revelation; intellect refers knowledge back to evidence and to principles knowable
by natural light, while faith refers it back to authority and to a superior illumination
attained by grace.10

6
To expose the thought of Clemens, I will focus here on two representative publications: Franz Jakob
Clemens, De scholasticorum sententia philosophiam esse theologiae ancillam commentatio (Monasterii
Guestphalorum: Aschendorff, 1856); id., Unser Standpunkt in der Philosophie, Der Katholik 39 (1859),
pp. 9-23, 129-154. The anonymous article in Der Katholik retakes the Latin work from 1856.
7
See Mnch, Franz Brentano und die katholische Aristoteles-Rezeption, pp. 173-174.
8
See ibid., p. 172.
9
See Clemens, Unser Standpunkt in der Philosophie, pp. 129-132.
10
Franz Jakob Clemens, Die neueste Literatur ber den heil. Thomas von Aquino, Der Katholik 39
(1859), p. 680.

4
 For Clemens, philosophical knowledge is therefore accessible to every human
being by using the strengths of his reason. Philosophy has its own dynamic and should
not be reduced to a reflection on faith. This is a task of theology, but philosophy is
based on the experiences common to every human being. The philosopher who enjoys
faith is helped by it in his reflections, but he must investigate reality philosophically.
Let us resume the aforementioned article by Clemens, where he presents his
understanding of the proper philosophical procedure for a Catholic philosopher. He
refutes the idea that the Fathers of the Church and the Scholastic Doctors would have
attempted to do an impossible task, namely, to bring Christian beliefs into accord with
pagan thought that is incompatible with them. Clemens asserts that, after all, philosophy
can be designated neither Christian nor pagan, neither Catholic nor Protestant, for it is
a scientific knowledge based on the power of reason.11 The different ways of reasoning
that belong to different traditions are not incommensurable but they must be measured
by the common rule of scientific reason. The Christian has an added rational knowledge
thanks to faith; however, this does not destroy reason, but allows him to recognize the
truth discovered by pagans. Thus, although the Catholic position admits the weakness of
all human power after the fall in the original sin, the reduction of natural forces is not so
complete that it prevents them from carrying out their own operation; therefore, reason
remains apt to grasp the truth. In this sense, every man is capable of attaining the truth,
at least to some extent; hence, even the pagans can become teachers of Christians.
Those who received the gift of faith are invited to accept whatever truth they would find
in any philosophy, without asking who the person that asserted a statement was, but
rather if it is true and scientifically founded.12
Finally, he recommends this philosophical tradition cultivated within the Christian
realmwhich would have been interrupted by Bacon and Descartes in the same way
that the so-called reformers broke with the Tradition in the Church. He concludes: If
one would ask us now to whose archetype of that ancient and catholic wisdom about the
world we would adhere in the first place, and which one among the great Doctors of the
Church we think to choose as a guide, then we would name Thomas Aquinas before
anyone else.13 Then, he goes on to praise Aquinas love for truth and his exemplary

11
Id., Unser Standpunkt in der Philosophie, p. 145.
12
Ibid., p. 146; see also id., De scholasticorum sententia, p. 74.
13
Ibid., p. 151.

5
way of coordinating faith with reason that deserved him perpetual praise. Conclusively,
he quotes Pope Innocent VI:

His doctrine stands out among all others (except for the teachings of Sacred Scripture)
with such propriety in his words, such a mode of expression, such truth in his sentences,
so that one who adheres to it can never depart from the path of truth and whoever
challenges them will always become suspicious of being strayed from the truth.14

Surely, the Popes opinion may lead us to think that the philosophy of Aquinas
must become a pattern to confront any further discovery, so that we should refrain from
further exploration in philosophical matters; we would only have to transmit the thought
of the master to future generations and defend it from modern attacks. Such was
Mnchs interpretation of the purpose of German Neo-Scholasticism and of Clemens.15
Nevertheless, to ascribe this opinion to Clemens would signify a misinterpretation of his
words. In a harsh review written by Clemens, on a book by Plamann about the
philosophy of Aquinas, we can find his refusal to convert the philosophy of the
medieval Doctor into an untouchable compendium of Catholic doctrine:

[A]lthough [Aquinas] is neither an Apostle nor infallible and although he did not
register the truth in his pages in such a way that nothing was lacking to be written,
however [] [Plamann] seems to share the opinion of Fr. Labb in his hymn to St.
Thomas: St. Thomas summed up in his Sum of theologythat compendium of
mysteriesall that could be taught and said []16; in short, for him the Catholic
philosophy is none other than the Thomist one []. This interpretation seems to us to go
beyond the right measure and fall into an exaggerated one-sidedness similar to that one,
which Plamann rightly rejects and condemns in the followers of modern philosophies.

14
Ibid., p. 152.
15
However, here we have a more accurate presentation of Clemens mind: Fr eine zeitgeme
Erneuerung der christlichen Philosophie will Clemens bei Thomas von Aquin anknpfen, in dessen
Denken die philosophia perennis einen Gipfelpunkt erreicht hat. Wenn man ihm folgte, knnte man die
Irrwege der neueren philosophischen Bemhungen vermeiden. Dennoch geht es Clemens nicht um einen
sklavischen Anschlu an Thomas. Auch in der Vergangenheit hat sich die christliche Philosophie nicht an
alle Einzelaussagen von Thomas gebunden gewut. Die thomanische Philosophie ist nicht in allen
Punkten vollendet, aber ausbau- und vollendungsfhig; schlielich ist auch die neuere Philosophie nicht
in allen ihren Richtungen zu verwerfen (Walter, Die neuscholastische Philosophie im
deutschsprachigen Raum, p. 138. My italics).
16
See Petrus LAbb, Sancti Thomae Doctoris Angelici, Elogium, in Petri Labbe, Elogia Sacra.
Theologica, et Philosophica. Regia. Eminentia. Illustria. Historica. Poetica. Miscellanea (Venetiis:
Balleonium, 1674), p. 69.

6
 Catholic philosophy, as we also believe, found certainly in Aquinas its most prominent
representative, but it is not identical with Thomist philosophy.17

Thomas is not the only exponent of Catholic thought, because there are other very
worthy representatives of it and not all of the theses of Aquinas have been accepted by
all Catholic thinkers. Undoubtedly, Aquinas superiority makes him a splendid help to
avoid error and to find a safe guide while walking in the philosophical path, but to study
his writings does not excuse us from our own research. So, the above quoted article
continues with these words:

[] but our position regarding St. Thomas would be falsely interpreted and erroneously
censured if it were concluded from this that we would attempt to resolve immediately the
philosophical questions by appealing to the authority of the Angel of the School and that
we accept his philosophical teachings without verification and support; [] that we see
the philosophy of St. Thomas, and the Catholic past in general, as something so complete
and closed with regard to its content and form that there would be nothing to change in it,
nothing to improve and to add, so that it would satisfy all the needs of the present and we
would have nothing else to do but to support again their theses, to make them recognized
and to introduce them into schools; that we reject modern philosophy in all its ways, in all
its results and in all its aspects, and that we disapprove of all development due to it, as
well all progress achieved by it. In all these points our opinion is very diverse.18

I think these words clarify Clemenss position. His approach to tradition is full of
veneration and respect, but he does not use it as a rigid and inflexible rule that has
definitively ended philosophical reflection and rational effort. Thomism is not the only
philosophy worthy of the name, and it is not necessary to close the doors to any thought
that has not been generated in the atmosphere of faith. The truth must be welcomed
from wherever it comes. Trust in the truthfulness of God that manifests itself in the
Catholic faith and simultaneously in the human capacity for rational search does not
discourage research, but on the contrary, it arouses us to philosophical investigation. Of
course, this task will be accomplished with the serenity of mind given by faith, which
will prevent us from falling too hurriedly into erroneous postures. Faith does not limit,
but liberates rational thinking. In this sense, Clemens has been faithful to the spirit of

17
Clemens, Die neueste Literatur ber den heil. Thomas von Aquino, pp. 675-676.
18
Id., Unser Standpunkt in der Philosophie, pp. 152-153.

7
Aquinas in discussing these questions and he is far from a philosophical dogmatism, as
well as from a school attitude in which the opinion of the master is uncritically
assumed.

3. Neo-Scholasticism and the youth of Brentano

If we turn back to Brentano himself, we cannot find in his early works the slightest
trace of an understanding of Aquinas as an insurmountable paradigm of thought that
should only be slavishly imitated. On the contrary, for example in an article from 1867,
he seems to agree with his teacher Clemens (1862), already deceased a few years
before this publication. Moreover, we even have a pronouncement against philosophical
dogmatism as significant as that of his teacher. Let us see how he explains the way in
which Thomas became the official theologian of the Order of Preachers:

In 1286 [] the teachings of St. Thomas became the declared and undisputed doctrine of
the whole Order. | This event was of major importance and immeasurable consequences
followed. [] Not only has speculation become entirely fruitless within the Dominican
Order, but also the decadence of all medieval science comes from those decisions of the
Chapter to a not insignificant extent.19

It is well known that Brentano would later interpret the history of philosophy in
four stages, two of development and two of decadence: one of pure theoretical interest
together with another of formation and methodological development, one of distortion
of the scientific attitude, replaced by practical interest, together with another of
scepticism.20 It is clear that the dogmatic imposition of a system of thought as a closed
structure in no way susceptible of being contradicted represents a clear sign of the
beginning of a decadent stage; in fact, such was the case in the Dominican Order at that
time.21
Surely such statements are linked with the epistolary relationship that he
maintained from that time with Denifle. He was studying as a pre-novice in the Order of

19
Franz Brentano, Geschichte der kirchlichen Wissenschaften, in Kirchengeschichte, ed. Johann Adam
Mhler, 2. Band (Regensburg: Manz, 1867), pp. 563-564.
20
See id., Die vier Phasen der Philosophie und ihr augenblicklicher Stand (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1895), pp.
10-12.
21
See ibid., pp. 17-18.

8
Preachers, where our philosopher also had entered before he became a secular priest.
Let us listen to Brentanos testimony about the content of one of these missives:

I remember a letter that Heinrich Denifle wrote to me from his pre-novitiate in Wrzburg,
where he told me with a dejected spirit how they were taught that Thomas had brought all
philosophy to its fulfilment forever. Nothing could be done but to explain its doctrine and
defend it from new objections.22

In fact, Denifle wrote to Brentano precisely because he saw in him a young

professor who was a good knower of the true Thomist spirit, someone who did not
understand philosophical work as a repetition of Aquinas theses but as a research in
which rational forces should be employed. This is the reason why, while he agreed with
the major points of Aquinas interpretation of Aristotle when he wrote his theses, he
was very independent, especially in his Habilitation thesis, where he did not fear
contradicting a number of assessments of Aquinas, even calling some of them
mistakes. 23 Therefore, he could never understand himself as a Neo-Scholastic
philosopher, because he linked this designation to the approach of those who think that
Aquinas should be followed absolutely in every statement. Indeed, the following words,
written by him already in this period of time, denote a decided detachment from the
Neo-Scholastic movement as such: The Neo-Scholasticism, so discredited They
certainly have not found the right way and often remain tied to the decadent.24
In conclusion, we can respond to the interpretation by Mnch, by saying that
Clemens, instead of imposing Brentano a closed system of thought, must have
contributed to stimulate his confidence in speculative reason. The main model for both
of them was Aquinas, who had not hesitated to freely use the reason without following
Aristotle in a slavishly way. This freedom made him even relativize the thought of
Thomas, but such attitude did not mean to betray Clemens, because he also sustained
that the Christian philosophy should respect faith (insofar it is a participation of Gods
reason), but not absolutely every statement of Aquinas. Of course, there were some
22
Id., Thomas von Aquin, p. 5. This letter could have been written in April 1869: see Antonio Russo,
Franz Brentano e Heinrich Denifle. Un carteggio inedito, Studium 3 (2003), pp. 337-338. See also id.,
La Scuola cattolica di Franz Brentano: Heinrich Suso Denifle (Trieste: EUT, 2003).
23
See Franz Brentano, Die Psychologie des Aristoteles, insbesondere seine Lehre vom
. Nebst einer Beilage ber das Wirken des Aristotelischen Gottes (Mainz: Franz Kirchheim,
1867), pp. 226-228.
24
Franz Brentano, note for the Vorlesungen der Geschichte der Philosophie, 1866-1867, quoted by Pietro
Tomasi, Una nuova lettura dellAristotele di Franz Brentano alla luce di alcuni inediti (Trento: Uni
Service, 2009), p. 32.

9
members of the Neo-Scholastic movement who thought that the philosophy of Aquinas
was insuperable and that reason could do no further investigation, but neither Clemens
nor Brentano sustained such position and they even criticized it with severity.
Moreover, in my opinion, if we link Clemens view with this position, as Mnch did, it
would become less probable that Brentano chose a very original approach for his own
philosophy as he indeed did. On the contrary, the true Clemens, whose assessments we
have read here, show us that love for true and willingness for free research were
characteristics of the original Thomist position, which Brentano came to learn from
Clemens.

10