SOURCE: "The Golden Wisdom" in Aquinas's Search for Wisdom, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1965, pp. 220-30.

[In the following excerpt, Bourke discusses Aquinas's reputation in the half-century following his death.]

"We earnestly exhort you, venerable brethren, to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas," wrote Pope Leo XIII in 1879.¹ This is one of the best known quotations from the famous letter which touched off the modern revival of interest in Aquinas' personality and thought. Pope Leo reviewed the repeated approvals of Thomism that are found in the words of nearly all the Roman pontiffs in the years since his canonization.² He also spoke with sorrow of the neglect into which the golden wisdom had fallen in Christian schools. The encyclical Aeterni Patris ended with a challenge to modern Catholic scholarship to adopt and carry on the spirit of St. Thomas' scholarship in the present day.

We do not propose to investigate here this story of the modern Thomistic revival. Instead, we shall look in this final chapter at what happened to the reputation and thought of Thomas Aquinas during the fifty years that followed his death. Many of his contemporaries and immediate successors felt that his wisdom was anything but golden. Still, there were always some who appreciated, at least in part, the heritage of Aquinas.

One way of judging the ability of a teacher is to examine the record of his students. If we applied this test to Thomas, we would have to conclude that he was not a successful teacher; for it is very difficult to find an outstanding thinker among the members of his immediate school. Certain men, like Giles of Rome and Henry of Ghent, are still remembered in the history of scholasticism but they are no longer regarded as Thomists. They thoroughly misunderstood Aquinas and, in fact, opposed him on many basic issues. Even within the Dominican Order, no scholar was found with the ability to carry on his work. Verious people collected and edited his works. Several men wrote completions for the unfinished writings. Generally speaking, these jobs were done badly. Much of our present difficulty with the text and chronology of the Thomistic writings could have been obviated by Reginald of Pipemo, if he had seen fit to write down what he knew about Thomas Aquinas. To this date, no one has been able to find anything that Reginald surely wrote.

Peter of Auvergne may be taken as typical of these first-generation "Thomists." He has been pictured as a devoted follower of Aquinas.³ Peter did write some of the complements that are now printed at the end of Thomas' unfinished commentaries on Aristotle, notably for the Politics, On Generation and Corruption, and On the Heavens. He had been designated rector of the university of Paris in 1275, and was doubtless one of those who admired Thomas in the arts faculty. Peter taught liberal arts at the University of Paris until the 1290's and served as professor of theology there from 1296 to 1302.⁴ It has long been known that he differed from Thomas on important theological questions;⁵ now we know that he disagreed on fundamental philosophical issues.⁶ This was not a matter of being an independent-minded student; Peter's tendency was toward a strict Aristotelianism similar to that of Siger of Brabant.

Not only did St. Thomas' students fail to understand him; there is much evidence of open antagonism to the whole thrust of Thomism during the 1270's. At Paris, Bishop Etienne Tempier (a former professor himself) was still worried by the prevalence of erroneous teachings at the university. We have seen how he condemned thirteen propositions in 1270. Apparently this preliminary act of censorship was ineffective. Bishop Tempier next called upon a commission of sixteen theologians (including Henry of Ghent) to prepare a more complete list of errors. They must have worked diligently: on March 7, 1277, Tempier issued a resounding condemnation of two hundred and nineteen theses which were now forbidden to be taught in the diocese of Paris.⁷ Approximately twenty of these "erroneous" propositions partially represent teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Without naming Aquinas, the Bishop forbade teaching such views as these: that a separate substance which moves nothing is not part of the universe; that individuals differ only by virtue of their matter; that separated substances exist in no place; that all intellects are basically possessed of the same power and that differences of actual intelligence stem from the body; that the will is determined by intellectual cognition.⁸ In effect, many basic themes in Thomism were now called errors at Paris.⁹ While Thomas was not formally named by Tempier, it was soon generally recognized that certain of his views were included in this condemnation.¹⁰ Not until February 14, 1325 (after the canonization of St. Thomas), did Bishop Etienne Bourret of Paris remove this censorship, insofar as it applied to Thomas.¹¹

Within ten days of Tempier's action, Robert Kilwardby (now Archbishop of Canterbury) moved to condemn thirty "erroneous" teachings in his diocese.¹² These were points in grammar, logic, and natural philosophy that were not to the liking of the former Dominican. Seven of the propositions in natural philosophy (Numbers 17, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, and 30) are obviously Thomistic in character. They are principally views concerning the passivity of prime matter, the type of distinction that obtains between matter and form, and, of course, the unity of the substantial form in one material substance. Kilwardby never liked Thomism and he wasted no time in showing his dislike. To put teeth into his disapproval, he ended his edict with these words:

He who supports, teaches or defends any of the aforementioned theses, as a result of his own intention, if he is a master he may be deposed by common counsel from the office of master, if he is a bachelor he may not be promoted to the magistrate but may be expelled from the University [Oxford].¹³

Ten years later (April 30, 1286), another man whose name we know, John Peckham, had become Archbishop of Canterbury. Acting as Primate of England, with the concurrence of three other English bishops and of several British theologians, Peckham formally renewed Kilwardby's edict.¹⁴ John Peckham was, of course, the Franciscan theologian who had come into open conflict with Aquinas around 1270. He particularly condemned the "presumptuous opinion" that there is but one substantial form in a composite.

Thus, within fifteen years of his death, a portion of Thomas Aquinas' doctrine was under condemnation by three bishops—one a former diocesan professor of theology, the second a fellow Dominican, the third a noted Franciscan scholar. By 1277, under serious ecclesiastical penalties, Thomistic views were forbidden to be taught at the two greatest universities in Christendom, Paris and Oxford.¹⁵ It was not a propitious start for a future Doctor of the Church.

For the next forty years or so (1280-1320), continual bickering occurred between the supporters and the opponents of Thomism. It was the period of the so-called "Correctorial" literature.¹⁶ Stimulated in part by the widespread criticism of Thomas, but also moved by a growing realization of the significance of his thought, the Dominican officials began to rally to the support of Thomism. The General Chapter at Milan (June, 1278) ordered two lectors from France (Raymond de Mévouillon and Jean Vigouroux) to make a hurried trip to England, there to inquire into the "scandalous detractions" of some of the British Friars Preacher against the writings of "the venerable Father, Brother Thomas de Aquino."¹⁷ A year later (June, 1279), the General Chapter at Paris ordered Dominican superiors in all provinces to punish severely any irreverent or unfitting talk about the person or writings of Thomas Aquinas.¹⁸ That these formal efforts to defend Thomas within the Dominican Order were deemed necessary is itself a good indication of the contemporary state of affairs.

Yet his writings were being read—and not only by Dominicans. About the year 1280, an English Franciscan scholar, William de la Mare, prepared a sort of commentary on selected portions of Aquinas' major writings (sixty-three articles from the Summa of Theology, twenty-four from the Disputed Questions, nine from the Quodlibets, and another nine questions from the Commentary on Book I of the Sentences). William's purpose was to "correct" the doctrine of these passages, so that his fellow Franciscans would be able to detect the errors when reading Thomas. At their general chapter in Strasbourg (1282), the Franciscan authorities ordered their provincial ministers to require that all copies of Aquinas' Summa of Theology, in the use of Franciscan lectors in theology, be accompanied in the text by the "Declarations" of Brother William de la Mare.¹⁹ Soon an English Dominican (either Thomas of Sutton or Richard Clapwell) wrote a set of "corrections" of William's "corruptions"! The text of this amazing contribution to the literature of Catholic intellectualism was widely circulated in manuscript and has received a modern edition.²⁰ There is a sort of comic-opera quality about these attacks and counterattacks, but the situation was not amusing to those immediately involved.

More and more Dominicans, from various provinces, now rose to the defense of Thomas Aquinas. John of Paris, O.P., produced his Correctorium Corruptorii "Circa"; Robert of Orford, O.P., issued his Correctorium "Sciendum"; another Englishman, William of Macclesfield, O.P., wrote a Correctorium "Quaestione." By 1290, an Italian, Rambert of Bologna, O.P., had entered the fray with a new title: Apologeticum veritatis contra Corruptorium. Most of these controversial writings have only been discovered, in manuscript, comparatively recently and are not yet in print. Probably other items in the Correctorial literature remain to be identified.

About the year 1282, Roger Marston, O.F.M., circulated the rumor that an opinion of Thomas Aquinas (concerning the type of distinction that obtains among the Persons of the divine Trinity) was "excommunicated" at Paris back in 1270.²¹ Between 1284 and 1287, John Peckham, as Archbishop of Canterbury, sent a series of letters to various officials of Oxford University and to other ecclesiastical personages. These letters emphasized the doctrinal differences that had arisen between the Dominican and Franciscan Orders, frequently mentioned the unfortunate errors that Aquinas had introduced into Christian learning, and expressed the wish that the Pope would soon act to separate the wheat from the chaff.²² Peckham's disagreement with Aquinas mainly concerned philosophical questions, but this Archbishop would have been shocked at the suggestion that there was anything "golden" about the wisdom of Thomas.

At the same time (1286-1324), various chapter meetings in the Order of Preachers (Paris, Cologne, Metz, London, Bologna, Rouen, Vienne, and Bordeaux) forcefully enjoined the study of Thomas Aquinas' writings and general respect for his doctrine. By 1313, the chapter of Metz was ordering: "No one may be sent to the Paris studium, unless he has diligently studied the doctrine of Brother Thomas for at least three years."²³ Much of the internal Dominican opposition to Thomism was a phenomenon of the English Province, possibly due to the influence of Robert Kilwardby. However, anti-Thomism was not confined to England. In Italy, a young Florentine, named Uberto Guidi, O.P., openly attacked some features of Thomism. The provincial chapter at Arezzo in 1315 castigated his disrespect, suspended all his scholarly functions for two years, removed him from the Florence to the Pistoria monastery, and assigned him to a ten-day fast on bread and water as a punishment!²⁴

By the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Dominicans of the new Neapolitan Province began to hope that Brother Thomas of Aquino might be formally recognized as a saint.²⁵ The Provincial, Nicholas Brunacci, had known Brother Thomas from the time of the second Paris professorate and much favored the idea of canonization. Of course, William of Tocco was eager to promote the cause, and he began to assemble information on the life and works of the prospective saint. William had been with Thomas at Naples and was acquainted with many relatives and friends of the Aquino family. Tocco was himself a distinguished figure in the province, having been made a preacher general in 1288.²⁶ John XXII became pope in 1316, during the period when the papal residence was at Avignon, France. He proved to be very favorable to the movement for canonization. The provincial chapter in 1317 met at Gaeta (not far from the birthplace of Aquinas, Gaeta was the town from which the great Thomist, Cardinal Cajetan, took his name in the Renaissance) and directed two Brothers, William of Tocco and Robert of San Valentino, to prepare and present the required documents at the papal court.²⁷ After gathering what material he could in support of the petition, Tocco (now in his seventies) made the trip to Avignon and was cordially received by Pope John. In fact, the Pope assured the elderly Dominican: "We believe that Brother Thomas is a glorious saint in Heaven, for his life was saintly and his teaching was not possible without a miracle."²⁸ Probably no promoter of a cause has ever had a better reception at the papal court. Pope John was much impressed by letters of approval from the dowager Queen Mary of Sicily and other officials in the Sicilian government. A papal commission of non-Dominican cardinals was appointed to examine the documentation supplied by William of Tocco. Of course, the Life of St. Thomas Aquinas by Tocco, which is the source of much of our present information, was a part of this dossier submitted at Avignon.

William found two men already at Avignon who gave added support to his efforts, if anything more was needed. Bartholomew of Lucca, the Dominican author of the Ecclesiastical History in which Thomas Aquinas had already figured, was there and eager to help. So was another prominent Dominican, Bernard Gui, now the procurator general of the Order. Doubtless these influential friars (Bartholomew had been raised to the episcopacy) compared information on Thomas Aquinas. One of the earliest Latin biographies was written by Gui.²⁹ There is, however, little information in it that was not in Tocco's Life, which appears to be the first.

Pope John appointed the Archbishop of Naples, the Bishop of Viterbo, and a notary (Pandolfo de Sabbello) to conduct a formal investigation at Naples into the life and works of Thomas Aquinas.³⁰ The canonization proceedings at Naples were duly held at the Archbishop's residence, from July 21 to September 18, 1319. Many Dominicans, several Cistercians from Fossanova, and some lay peoplewere interviewed and asked to tell, under oath, what they knew about Thomas and his reputation. Ten of the witnesses were people who had been personally acquainted with Aquinas, or had heard him preaching, during the last years in Naples and, of course, at Fossanova. Some of the testimony was from witnesses who had simply heard of his reputation for holiness. Many told of apparently miraculous cures effected during Thomas' lifetime and after his death.³¹ Today St. Thomas is remembered chiefly as a great theologian; to many of these witnesses he was, rather, a holy man whose powers of intercession were remarkable.

William of Tocco and two notaries who substituted for the absent Pandolfo de Sabbello brought the records of the Naples investigation to Avignon in the winter of 1319-1320. After more than a year had elapsed, in June of 1321, Pope John directed William to return to Italy and gather more complete information about miracles that had occurred after Thomas' death. Many witnesses from the region about Fossanova and the countryside of Aquino had been unable to go to Naples for the first proceedings. Thus the indefatigable old Brother William went back and arranged for a second investigation at the Cistercian monastery of Fossanova. Appointed by the Pope to take charge of these proceedings were the Bishops of Anagni and Terracina, together with the notary, Pandolfo. Testimony was taken at Fossanova from November 10 to 20, 1321.³² Again Pandolfo was absent.

At this investigation many more Cistercians were heard and the details of Thomas' last days and death were well covered. Also, about one hundred lay people (men and women) from the Terra di Lavoro were heard. They made it very, clear that a local cult of the saintly Tommaso d'Aquino had spontaneously developed in southern Italy. Many of these simple country people did not know their own ages (which they were invariably asked when being sworn in), but they were quite sure that Brother Thomas was indeed a saint. They told of dozens of wonderful cures that had come about through his intercession. To determine the precise nature of their manifold ailments is not easy (the proceedings were conducted in the vernacular and then translated into Latin for the official record) but at least one striking fact comes to light from a careful reading of the record. Sufferers from arthritis and rheumatism might do well to take Thomas Aquinas as their patron and intercessor.

In due time the Fossanova proceedings were brought to Avignon—but not by William of Tocco. He died before the final decision was made to canonize Thomas. Papal approval was now given the cause and the canonization was formally proclaimed at Avignon on July 18, 1323.³³

From two complementary accounts by eyewitnesses (one anonymous and the other by a Brother Bentius, O.P., from Bologna) we have a rather full description of the ceremonies and festivities in Avignon. At the public consistory, Pope John XXII preached first on the holiness of Thomas' life and the eminence of his teaching. This papal discourse ended with the announcement that Thomas Aquinas was worthy of being inscribed in the catalogue of the saints.³⁴ Then Brother Peter Canterius, O.P., representing the ailing John of Naples, replied as promoter of the cause. After that, King Robert of Sicily (who was there with the Queen) spoke on the text: "He was the lamp, burning and shining" (Jn 5:35). A series of bishops then added their encomia: the Dominican Patriarch of Alexandria, the Archbishop of Capua, the Bishop of Winchester in England, and the Archbishop of Arles. As a crowning gesture of goodwill, the final speaker on this first day was Bishop Jean de Tixanderie, a Franciscan, who added his voice to the general acclaim. The anonymous account adds: "Nor were there then heard so many commendations of St. Thomas, as from this man."³⁵

Three days later, in the Church of Notre-Dame des Doms in Avignon, Pope John celebrated the Mass of St. Thomas and preached on the text: "For thou art great and dost wonderful things" (Ps 85:10). Before the King and Queen and a great crowd of notable ecclesiastics, Thomas Aquinas was now declared a saint. The King proclaimed to the whole city of Avignon that festivities were to be held on a par with those of Christmas! The Dominicans of the monastery of Avignon offered a reception which was attended by King Robert and his Queen. For two more days, special Masses were celebrated. On one of these days, Thomas' nephew, Count Thomas of San Severino, provided a sumptuous banquet.³⁶ As the wide-eyed Brother Bentius concluded his report to his superiors in Bologna, "The actual occurrence of the solemnity exceeds my words."³⁷

There will always be accountants. We even have four carefully preserved documents which record the expenses for the various banquets given at the time of the canonization. Many gold florins were paid out for soup, fowl, eggs, beef carcasses, and fish. There was even a special account for the dishwashers. On the margin of one of these accounts, some diligent clerk noted: "It was the canonization of St. Thomas of Aquino; the King and seven Lord Cardinals ate."³⁸

In the Bull of Canonization, Pope John briefly reviewed the highlights of St. Thomas' life and character. He listed a few of the many miracles that had been attributed to him. Just before describing these ten miracles, the Pope made a very penetrating remark: "His life was attested to by miracles, yet this man's miracles simply carry forward the testimony of his own life."³⁹ Pope John saw that Thomas' life and teaching were at least as much a miracle as the great things that were later done in his name.

What made St. Thomas' wisdom golden was not the philosophical, or even the theological, detail of his thought. He left an example of what can be done by a Christian scholar who is willing and able to learn from any source of information. His mind was open to the insights of pagan philosophers, of Mohammedan and Jewish sages, of the long tradition of Greek and Latin Christian Fathers. Thomas was able to admit his own limitations: there were things that he never understood; there were times when he could only resort to prayer. The myth of an Aquinas who knew all the answers is a false construction of overzealous followers. Yet Thomas was always optimistic and hopeful in his quest for truth: with God's help, he approached every problem in a spirit of confidence. Neither pessimism nor skepticism held any virtue for him. He did not pretend that he had solved all the riddles of reality and life; he kept looking for ever better answers; and he enjoyed the challenge of his search.

This spirit of his life cries out in one of the most memorable sentences in all his writings.⁴⁰

Of all the pursuits open to men, the search for wisdom is more perfect, more sublime, more profitable, and more full of joy.

Notes

¹Aeterni Patris, in The Church Speaks to Modern World, ed. E. Gilson (New York: Doubleday, 1954), pp. 31-51; the quotation is from p. 50.

² For details of these encomia by many popes, see: J. Maritain, The Angelic Doctor: the Life and Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. J. W. Evans and P. O'Reilly (New York: Meridian Books, 1958).

³ M. Grabmann, Die Werke, p. 297, cites a fourteenth-fifteenth-century note from a Toledo manuscript of the Summa Theologiae, concerning the Supplement: "Similiter magister Petrus de Alvernia complevit omnes libros, quos beatus Thomas dimisit incompletos, videlicet istam ultimam partem, libros meteorum, de gene-ratione et corruptione, celi et mundi et alios; et iste doctor fuit sectator doctrine sancti Thome."

⁴ Van Steenberghen, Le Mouvement, p. 313.

⁵ E. Hocedez, "La théologie de Pierre d'Auvergne," Gregorianum, XI (1930), 526-552.

⁶ A. P. Monahan, "The Subject of Metaphysics for Peter of Auvergne," Med. Studies, XVI (1954), 118-130. Monahan notes (p. 130) "the singular lack of favour St. Thomas' doctrine held among his immediate successors."

⁷ The text of Tempier's famous condemnation of 1277 is printed in C.U. P., I, 543-558; reprinted with some corrections in Fontes, VI, 596-614; with a different numbering, in Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant, 2me ed., II, 175-191.

⁸ For a detailed list of the propositions that approximate the thought of Thomas Aquinas, Gilson, Hist. of Christ Philos., p. 728.

⁹ For a historical study of this and associated acts of ecclesiastical censorship in the period: J. Koch, "Philosophische und theologische Irrtumslisten von 1270-1329. Ein Beitrag zur Entwickelung der theologischen zensuren," in Mélanges Mandonnet, II, 305-329.

¹⁰ Koch, art. cit., p. 307, lists Quodlibets by Godfrey of Fontaine, Gervais de Mont Saint-Eloi, and John of Naples which make this clear. John'ś Quodl., VI, q. 2, is: Utrum doctrina fratris Thomae quantum ad omnes conclusiones possit licite doceri Parisius. (John lists, by number, various Thomistic theses in Tempier's condemnation.)

¹¹Doc. LV (Fontes, VI, 666-669). The operative phrase in the lengthy episcopal letter is: "supradictam articulorum condemnationem et excommunicationis sententiam, quantum tangunt vel tangere asseruntur doctrinam beati Thome predicti, ex certa scientia tenore presentium totaliter annullamus.…"

¹²Ibid., XXXIX (Fontes, VI, 615-617); dated March 18, 1277.

¹³Ibid., 617.

¹⁴Ibid., XLVI (Fontes, VI, 647-648).

¹⁵ Cf. D. Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1946).

¹⁶ Cf. A. Maurer, Medieval Philosophy (New York: Random House, 1962), pp. 208-219; for more complete bibliography on the Correctorial writings and studies of them, see E. Gilson, Hist. of Christ. Philos., pp. 410-427, 730-735.

¹⁷Doc. XLI (Fontes, VI, 621).

¹⁸Ibid., 622.

¹⁹Ibid., XLIII (Fontes, VI, 624-625).

²⁰ P. Glorieux has edited the work of William de la Mare, plus the Dominican response, in: Les premiers polémiques thomistes. I. Le "Correctorium Corruptoril QUARE (Kain: Bibliothèque Thomiste, 1927).

²¹ R. Marston, Quaestiones disputatae de Emanatione aeterna (Bibliotheca Franciscana, VII) (Quaracchi, 1932), pp. 116-117.

²² Peckham's letters on this matter are reprinted in Fontes, VI, 627-648.

²³ "Nullus etiam ad studium Parisiense mittatur, nisi in doctrina fratris Thome saltem tribus annis studuerit diligenter." Fontes, VI, 656.

²⁴Ibid., 661-662.

²⁵ The Sicilian Province (including Naples and south Italy) was formed by partition of the Roman Province in 1294. A. Walz, Compendium Historiae Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. 2a (Roma: Angelicum, 1948), pp. 123, 142.

²⁶ Cf. Foster, Life, pp. 6-7.

²⁷ A. Walz, "Historia canonizationis S. Thomae de Aquino," in Xenia Thomistica, III (Rome, 1925), 105-172.

²⁸ Tocco, Vita, Suppl. 12 (Fontes, II, 148).

²⁹ Edited by D. Prümmer in Fontes, III, 168-263; translated in Foster, Life, pp. 25-58.

³⁰ The papal letter is in Fontes, IV, 269-271; it is dated at Avignon, September 13, 1318.

³¹ Some sample passages from this Naples testimony have been translated in Foster, Life, pp. 82-119; the original Latin transcript is in Fontes, IV, 273-407. We have used much of this material earlier.

³²Proc. Can. Fossae-novae, Fontes, V, 417-510.

³³ The date is given in an anonymous record, Fontes, V, 513.

³⁴Ibid., 514.

³⁵Ibid., 515.

³⁶Ibid., 518.

³⁷ "Solemnitatis veritas superat verba mea." Ibid., 518.

³⁸Ibid., 531-532.

³⁹Ibid., 524.

⁴⁰ "Inter omnia vero hominum studia sapientiae studium est perfectius, sublimius, utilius et iucundius." Summa contra Gentiles, I, 2.