Lexicon of Saint Thomas Aquinas by Roy J. Deferrari (review)

158 BOOK REVIEWS Lexicon of Saint Thomas Aquinas. By ROY J. DEFERRARI. Fitzwilliam, N.H.: Loreto Publications, 2004. Pp. 1185. $70.00 (cloth). ISBN: 978-1930278455. When The Catholic University of America Press first published the Lexicon ofSaint Thomas Aquinas in 1948, it was extolled as "an epoch-making event in the world of American scholarship" and a "monumental work" with "brilliant significance." One reviewer, writing for the Anglican Theological Review, called it "an indispensable tool for the student of St. Thomas" and praised "the thoroughness of the study" (A.D. Kelley, in ATR 36, no. 4 [1954]: 301-2). Thomistic studies and the technology available to assist it have both changed considerably in the past sixty years, yet the Lexicon remains a useful resource for any careful explication of the Thomistic corpus. It is therefore with some of the old enthusiasm that we can welcome the return of the Lexicon to the catalogues of new book offerings. A reprint of Roy J. Deferrari's magnum opus was published in 2004 by Loreto Publications in collaboration with Preserving Christian Publications (Boonville, New York). To begin with, the bibliopegistic qualities of this volume are impressive. The binding has a sturdy sewn signature, and the 11W' x 8%'' paper used for the pages is of a high caliber (non acidic and resistant to deterioration). At 1,185 pages, the volume is over 2 1/i'' thick and weighs approximately five pounds. The printing is consistent and clear and has none of the blurry or uneven aspects that make many other reprints look like photocopies. Finally, with its tan leather-like cover and imprinted lettering, the Lexicon is in all likelihood the most handsome reference book that will grace one's shelves. It is astonishing that, with all these attributes, the Lexicon's regular price is listed at only $70 on the Preserving Christian Publications website and $89 on the Loreto website (inexplicably, it retails on amazon.com for $119). The content between the covers is commensurate with its appearance. Roy Joseph Deferrari, the Gardiner Professor of Greek and Latin at Catholic University, was a prolific translator of early and medieval Christian texts (his name appears frequently in the Fathers of the Church series). He was already known as a "veteran in the field of concordances and lexicons" when he began collaborating with M. Inviolata Barry, C.D.P., and Ignatius McGuinness, O.P., on the formidable task of making sense out of the diction and style of Aquinas. The project was daunting not only because of the quantity of Aquinas's 200+ writings, but because of their variance. Aquinas adopted different styles in the works he composed (which, needless to say, affected his use and selections of words), and his overall Latinity-despite the fact that it was firmly rooted in a well-established Scholastic tradition-is fairly distinctive. A worthwhile general lexicon would have to be able to account for any underlying commonality as well as subtle shifts in meaning based on context. The editors were resolute because they held the conviction (somewhat ahead of their time) that in order to understand St. Thomas' thought it was important to "understand his language generally and not its philosophical and theological aspects exclusively" (vii). They also sawthat because typical Latin instruction was primarily in classical Latin, students and scholars were ill-prepared for Aquinas's BOOK REVIEWS 159 "phraseology and idiom," which is "quite unknown to the writers through whose works our college and seminary students have in a large part been trained" (vii). Thus, they conclude, "in these days when the study of Latin has declined almost universally and appears to be on the downward trail [this in 1948!], it becomes increasingly important that attention be given to the language of St. Thomas as an indispensable instrument in the study of his thought" (vii-viii). In his enthusiastic foreword, Ignatius Smith claims that Aquinas understood Aristotle better than his nemeses Averroes and Siger of Brabant because he had a better grasp ofAristotelian terminology (v). Whether or not this is the case, it is at least true for the study of what Smith calls "the real 'Intentio Thomae."' Deferrari and his collaborators were...