Thomas Aquinas and His Legacy ed. by David M. Gallagher (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 137 the delights of divine play in creation, and enter into the life of the triune God. Thompson's work gives us hope-hope that the renewal of theology, based on a balanced harmony of ressourcement and aggiornamento (enrichment by the sources and responsiveness to contemporary needs), which appeared so promising in the works of theologians like Congar, de Lubac, and Balthasar, will continue in the mainstream of American theology. At the same time, I suspect that Thompson would be the first to admit that the work of integration has only begun. Of the many issues that, in my opinion, remain to be confronted I would like to outline only two. First, one needs to elaborate the philosophical-theological foundations of "participatory knowing" in general and, specifically, in matters theological. Affective knowledge, wisdom (sapientia) based on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and an ontological conformity with Christ, is a necessary foundation and hoped-for consequence of proper theological knowledge, but it is not identical with it. Every saint had the supernatural gift of wisdom, but not every saint was a theologian in the strict sense of the word. Here differentiation must precede integration. (The wisdom tradition in the fathers and mothers of the Church and the treatise of St. Thomas on the gift of wisdom [STh II-II, q. 45] may provide the starting point.) Second, Thompson's synthesis appeals only to those who have already practiced this method, in some way or other. Those who accept only the method of literary and historical criticism in dealing with the Scriptures need to be shown that the very logic of the critical method demands that it be transcended (not abolished!) by those who apply it to the Bible. University ofDallas Dallas, Texas ROCH KERESZTY, 0.CIST. Thomas Aquinas and His Legacy. Edited by DAVID M. GALLAGHER. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1994. Pp. 220. Thomas Aquinas and His legacy offers the analyses and keen observations of some of the more prominent Thomistic philosophers on the contemporary horizon. It is impossible, within the short compass of the present review, to do ample justice to the various speculative threads that are woven through this collection. Several distinct themes, pursued by authors of proven distinction , are well articulated and placed in their historic context. Yet perhaps most interesting is what is not said, but which nonetheless leaps from the 138 BOOK REVIEWS page to the alert observer: namely, the systematic speculative focus of the authors. For several years, there has been an underlying tension affecting the Thomistic intellectual community. Under the strong impetus of the unchallengeable greatness of Etienne Gilson, whose systematic philosophic intelligence coexisted with the habitus of the historian, the renascence of medieval historical inquiry was enormous. However, this very event tended to eclipse systematic inquiry in favor of more historical research. While great figures such as Gilson and Anton Pegis never failed to approach issues in a systematic vein, many lesser lights assimilated only the historical habitus while properly speculative life waned. What resulted was an imperialism of the historical habitus at the expense of philosophy. This imperialism suffers by contrast with St. Thomas's use of history which is, as they say, a "cut to the chase." For example, "Aristotle says 'x' and gives three reasons, a, b, and c; on the contrary, Augustine says 'y' because of d, c, and e; but I respond that it should be said that..." Thence flows Thomas's own analysis, followed by his responses to objections. Both his Summae are filled with such considerations; and few can imagine that he exhausted the fertility of the principles that he employed. St. Thomas could not afford the luxury of aggrandizing historical competencies that distracted from his speculative focus. This virile speculative engagement, which adverts to historical competencies only as a necessary auxiliary (he did, after all, consult Moerbeke), does not accord well with Gilson's caveat that "No philosopher can know that he is a Thomist unless he also be an historian" (Etienne Gilson, History of Philosophy and Philosophical Education [Milwaukee: Marquette, 1948], 1920 ). And this prescription, quite apaii from the greatness of Gilson, immersed Thomistic thought in...