Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. 2 vols. by ANTON C.

PEGIS
Review by: Leo Strauss
Social Research, Vol. 13, No. 2 (JUNE 1946), pp. 260-262
Published by: The New School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40982149 .
Accessed: 24/06/2014 19:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The New School is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.38 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:48:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
26o SOCIAL RESEARCH
of culture,Cassirercomes to the optimisticconclusionthat "that
whichtheindividualsthink,wishand feeldoes notremainlockedin
theirbreast,but is objectivatedin theirwork."
LrnstMoritz manasse
NorthCarolinaCollegeforNegroes

PEGIS, ANTON C, ed. Basic Writings of Saint ThomasAquinas.

[Annotated, withan introduction bytheeditor.] New York:Random
House. 1945. 2 vols.:vol. 1,liii and 1097pp.,vol. 2, 1179pp. $7.50.
In thiseditionof Thomas Aquinas,Professor Pegis has rendered
a verygreatserviceto highereducationin thiscountry.He has made
easilyaccessiblein Englishtranslationthe whole firstpart of the
Summatheologicaand suchsectionsof its secondpart,as well as of
the SummacontraGentiles,as suffice for a generalunderstanding
of Thomas'"conceptionof thelifeof man withinthedivinegovern-
mentand of the principles, internaland external,whichman needs
and can findin working out his destiny."The translation is a revised
versionoftheEnglishDominicantranslation. In hisrevisionProfessor
Pegis has "aimed primarily at accuracy,and at preserving the uni-
formity of St. Thomas' technicalterminology."As far as one can
judge froman examinationof a fewselectedpassages,he has been
remarkablysuccessful.In particular,his translationseems to be
unusuallyfreeof the vice thatis commoneven in otherwisegood
translations of philosophictexts: that of unnecessarily departing
fromthe literal. This is not to denythattherewould be roomfor
improvement in subsequentprintings.For instance,in the transla-
tionof thequaestiodealingwiththenaturallaw (vol. 2, pp. 777 ff.),
"apud omnes"is renderedwithoutany reasonby expressions as dif-
ferentas "in all men," "in all" and "for all," while "est de jure
naturali"is translated "is a matterof naturallaw," "belongsto the
naturallaw" and "is of thenaturallaw." "Mutakallimin" shouldbe
replaced in all casesby "mutakallimun."
In his introduction theeditordiscussestheintellectualbackground
of theworkof Thomas,his "spiritand significance" and his lifeand
works.One couldwishthathe had devoteda fewpagesto themethod
of presentation used in the Summa theologica,a methodwhichat
firstis bound to be bewildering, not to say unintelligible, to the
general reader of our day. Pegis' summary account of the problem
withwhichThomaswas confronted and of his solutionis clear,sober
and, on mostpoints,convincing.He observesthat"the basic issue
at stake"was "thenatureofwisdom,"or,in otherwords,"thenature

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.38 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:48:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BOOK REVIEWS 261
of philosophyitself,"and that Thomas' achievementconsistedin
"freeingphilosophyfromthe philosophers."This is certainlytrue
in thesensethatThomas,in order"to makethePhilosopher a worthy
vehicleof reasonin Christianthought,"had to give to philosophy
itselfa meaningfundamentally different fromits Aristotelian(or
in as
Platonic)meaning: Thomas, distinguished fromthe classical
philosophers and certainlyfrom their greatestfollowerin the
Islamic world (Farabi), philosophyis divorcedfromthe convic-
tion thathappinesscan be achievedonly by,or essentially consists
in,philosophy.
Pegisrepeatedly grantsthatThomasdid notmerelyadd a teaching
based on revelationto the Aristotelianteachingbased on reason,
but thathe directlyopposedimportantelementsof the Aristotelian
teachingon the plane of the latter. He believes,however,that as
regardsthe centralquestion-the questionof creation-the Aristo-
teliandoctrineis notopposedto theBiblicaldoctrine, because"there
is a considerabledifferencebetweennot knowingtheidea of creation
and denyingit." I fail to see the usefulnessof this distinction in
thecase at hand. Is it madein orderto suggestthatone can reconcile
theAristotelian teachingwiththeBiblicalteachingwithoutabandon-
ing the"spirit" theformer?But how can thisbe truein thelight
of
of the factthatAristotledid not intend"to leave his explanation
oftheoriginoftheworldunfinished," and did notleaveit unfinished?
Aristotledid not leave room,intentionally or unintentionally,for
a revealedteachingwhichcould be added to his rationalteaching.
An introduction to theworkofThomasmustpointthewaytoward
the
overcoming typicalpresent-day obstacleswhichpreventitsgenuine
understanding. These obstaclesare the two forcesthat dominate
all present-daythought- scienceand history.Withregardto science
he
Pegissimplycapitulates; grants thatthereis "muchbad science"
in Thomas,yethe holds that thisdoes not affectthe value of his
philosophy.Can one as easilyas thatget rid of the enormousdiffi-
culty presentedby the inseparableconnectionbetweenThomas'
physicsand his naturaltheology?It would have been morefruitful
to indicatewhyand how far the questionsraised by Thomist,or
Aristotelian,physicsretaintheirfull significance regardlessof any
progress thatmodernsciencehas achievedby raisingquestionsof an
entirely different
type.
As forhistory,
Pegis,whilelucidlydescribing theattitudeofThomas
towardthephilosophers whoprecededhim,refers to hiswayofseeing
"the historyof philosophy," or of seeking"the guidingthreadof

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.38 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:48:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
262 SOCIAL RESEARCH
the historyof philosophy,"and assertsthat Thomas' "successfuldiag-
nosis of the historyof Greek and Arabian philosophy"freed"the thir-
teenthcenturyof the danger of historicismin the presenceof Greek
and Arabian thinkers." Passing over the strange implication that
the danger of historicismexisted in the thirteenthcentury,I should
say that it only contributesto the prevailing confusion to interpret
Thomas' critical study of the teachingsof his predecessors-a study
closelyakin to that which a mathematiciandevotes,not to the history
of mathematics,but to mathematical literature-as a concern with
the historyof philosophy. The confusionis apparentlyremoved,and
thereforeactually increased, by maintaining that "St. Thomas saw
thehistoryof philosophyin the present"insteadof sayingthatThomas
studied the teachings of his predecessorswith an exclusive regard
to their truthor falsehood,or that for Thomas only argument,and
not "history,"could legitimatelydecide the fate of any philosophic
thesis.
Leo Strauss

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.38 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:48:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions