The History of the Dominican Order by William A. Hinnebusch, O.P. (review)

BOOK REVIEWS The History of the Dominican Order. Vol. II: Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1560. By WILLIAM A. HINNEBUSCH, O.P. New York: Alba House, 1973. Pp. 474. $9.75. This second volume of Fr. Hinnebusch's four volume history of the Order of Preachers portrays with great clarity the intellectual and cultural aspect of the Order during the first three centuries of its existence. It is an intellectual history of the Order to 1500, the like of which has never before been written. All the elements in it have been discussed by serious scholars in Europe and in America, but never before have the elements been brought together in this form either in English or in any other modern language. The breadth of knowledge indicated in the extensive and exhaustive footnotes , the profundity of understanding indicated in the analysis of ideas, the empathy of feeling indicated in its portrayal of saintly lives and the Dominican ideal, all tend to make this the best book of its kind in any language. In the first three chapters the place of study in the ideal of St. Dominic is brought out in Dominican constitutions, organization of priories and studia, and their role in the life of the Church. Although careful attention is given to various studia and their curriculum, there are still many obscure points. Was the master of theology at Saint-Jacques the same as the lector of the priory? Who attended the master's lectures? How did this work out at Saint-Jacques where there were two masters? The role of the lector in an ordinary priory is perfectly clear, but it is not so clear what the situation was in a studium. After discussing the contribution of Dominicans to biblical studies in the Middle Ages (ch. 4), the achievements of Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas are brought out in the context of their age (ch. 5) . While the description of Albert's contribution in particular stands out as a gem in this volume (p. H1-13~) , Thomas's contribution (pp. 13~14 ~) and the development of Thomism (ch. 6) are discussed adequately, though not profoundly. The discussion of books and libraries in the Dominican Order (ch. 7) might better have served as chapter four, and the pastoral writings of Dominicans (ch. 8) might better have been amplified in the context of non-Dominican pastoralia of the period. To me the most stirring chapter in this volume deals with the Northern Dominican spiritual writers, especially the German mystics (ch. 9), while the following chapter on 165 166 BOOK REVIEWS Italian Dominican writers of spirituality (ch. 10) sympathetically describes many Dominicans whose names are not even known to English readers. The final chapter is a splendid presentation of other Dominican writers: historians, encyclopedists, scientists, and humanists. The treatment throughout is sympathetic, and the scholarship is impeccable . This volume is worthy to be translated into other modem languages, which should not be difficult as the style is quite straightforward, if not wooden at times. One would like to have seen a conclusion to the last chapter and a more vigorous conclusion to the whole volume. The impression one gets is that Fr. Hinnebusch petered out at the end of his Herculean labors. There are numerous typographical errors in the volume; I counted more than two dozen. Among the more serious and remediable errors are to be noted that Costa ben Luca is the author of On the Difference of Spirit and Soul and not of On Death and Life (p. ~7) ; on p. 80, line 6 should be deleted as a repetition of line 9; p. 144, fn. 85-86, there is misplacing of linotype; p. 8~4, line 18, either " and " is wrong or a line is missing; p. 146, line ~6 makes no sense. One point, however, that should be noted is not a typographical error. Fr. Hinnebusch maintains with Mandonnet that Thomas was cursor biblicus from 1~5~-54 (p. 188) , and at the same time admits that Friars were normally dispensed from this duty because of equivalent studies in their own priories. I think we must maintain today that Thomas was never cursor biblicus at Paris...