This site is full of FREE ebooks - Project Gutenberg Australia

Title: St. Thomas Aquinas
Author: G. K. Chesterton
* A Project Gutenberg of Australia eBook *
eBook No.:  0100331.txt
Language:   English
Date first posted: December 2001
Date most recently updated: March 2006

This etext was produced by: ainsje00@wfu.edu and Colin Choat

Project Gutenberg of Australia eBooks are created from printed editions
which are in the public domain in Australia, unless a copyright notice
is included. We do NOT keep any eBooks in compliance with a particular
paper edition.

Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing this
file.

This eBook is made available at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg of Australia License which may be viewed online at
http://gutenberg.net.au/licence.html

To contact Project Gutenberg of Australia go to http://gutenberg.net.au

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Title:    St. Thomas Aquinas
Author:   G. K. Chesterton





INTRODUCTORY NOTE
I ON TWO FRIARS
II THE RUNAWAY ABBOT
III THE ARISTOTELIAN REVOLUTION
IV A MEDITATION ON THE MANICHEES
V THE REAL LIFE OF ST. THOMAS
VI THE APPROACH TO THOMISM
VII THE PERMANENT PHILOSOPHY
VIII THE SEQUEL TO ST. THOMAS




--/--

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

This book makes no pretence to be anything but a popular sketch
of a great historical character who ought to be more popular.
Its aim will be achieved, if it leads those who have hardly even
heard of St. Thomas Aquinas to read about him in better books.
But from this necessary limitation certain consequences follow,
which should perhaps be allowed for from the start.

First, it follows that the tale is told very largely to those who are
not of the communion of St. Thomas; and who may be interested in him
as I might be in Confucius or Mahomet. Yet, on the other hand,
the very need of presenting a clean-cut outline involved its cutting
into other outlines of thought, among those who may think differently.
If I write a sketch of Nelson mainly for foreigners, I may have to explain
elaborately many things that all Englishmen know, and possibly cut out,
for brevity, many details that many Englishmen would like to know.
But, on the other side, it would be difficult to write a very vivid
and moving narrative of Nelson, while entirely concealing the fact
that he fought with the French. It would be futile to make a sketch
of St. Thomas and conceal the fact that he fought with heretics; and yet
the fact itself may embarrass the very purpose for which it is employed.
I can only express the hope, and indeed the confidence, that those
who regard me as the heretic will hardly blame me for expressing my
own convictions, and certainly not for expressing my hero's convictions.
There is only one point upon which such a question concerns this very
simple narrative. It is the conviction, which I have expressed once
or twice in the course of it, that the sixteenth-century schism was really
a belated revolt of the thirteenth-century pessimists. It was a back-wash
of the old Augustinian Puritanism against the Aristotelian liberality.
Without that, I could not place my historical figure in history.
But the whole is meant only for a rough sketch of a figure in a landscape
and not of a landscape with figures.

Second, it follows that in any such simplification I can hardly say
much of the philosopher beyond showing that he had a philosophy.
I have only, so to speak, given samples of that philosophy.
Lastly, it follows that it is practically impossible to deal
adequately with the theology. A lady I know picked up a book
of selections from St. Thomas with a commentary; and began hopefully
to read a section with the innocent heading, "The Simplicity
of God." She then laid down the book with a sigh and said,
"Well, if that's His simplicity, I wonder what His complexity is like."
With all respect to that excellent Thomistic commentary,
I have no desire to have this book laid down, at the very first glance,
with a similar sigh. I have taken the view that the biography
is an introduction to the philosophy, and that the philosophy
is an introduction to the theology; and that I can only carry
the reader just beyond the first stage of the story.

Third, I have not thought it necessary to notice those critics who,
from time to time, desperately play to the gallery by reprinting
paragraphs of medieval demonology in the hope of horrifying
the modern public merely by an unfamiliar language.
I have taken it for granted that educated men know that Aquinas
and all his contemporaries, and all his opponents for centuries after,
did believe in demons, and similar facts, but I have not
thought them worth mentioning here, for the simple reason
that they do not help to detach or distinguish the portrait.
In all that, there was no disagreement between Protestant
or Catholic theologians, for all the hundreds of years during
which there was any theology; and St. Thomas is not notable
as holding such views, except in holding them rather mildly.
I have not discussed such matters, not because I have any reason
to conceal them, but because they do not in any way personally
concern the one person whom it is here my business to reveal.
There is hardly room, even as it is, for such a figure in
such a frame.

--/--

I

ON TWO FRIARS

Let me at once anticipate comment by answering to the name
of that notorious character, who rushes in where even
the Angels of the Angelic Doctor might fear to tread.
Some time ago I wrote a little book of this type and shape
on St. Francis of Assisi; and some time after (I know not when
or how, as the song says, and certainly not why) I promised
to write a book of the same size, or the same smallness on
St. Thomas Aquinas. The promise was Franciscan only in its rashness;
and the parallel was very far from being Thomistic in its logic.
You can make a sketch of St. Francis: you could only make
a plan of St. Thomas, like the plan of a labyrinthine city.
And yet in a sense he would fit into a much larger or a much
smaller book. What we really know of his life might be pretty
fairly dealt with in a few pages; for he did not, like St. Francis,
disappear in a shower of personal anecdotes and popular legends.
What we know, or could know, or may eventually have the luck
to learn, of his work, will probably fill even more
libraries in the future than it has filled in the past.
It was allowable to sketch St. Francis in an outline; but with
St. Thomas everything depends on the filling up of the outline.
It was even medieval in a manner to illuminate a miniature
of the Poverello, whose very title is a diminutive.
But to make a digest, in the tabloid manner, of the Dumb Ox
of Sicily passes all digestive experiments in the matter
of an ox in a tea-cup. But we must hope it is possible to make
an outline of biography, now that anybody seems capable
of writing an outline of history or an outline of anything.
Only in the present case the outline is rather an outsize.
The gown that could contain the colossal friar is not kept in stock.

I have said that these can only be portraits in outline.
But the concrete contrast is here so striking, that even if we
actually saw the two human figures in outline, coming over the hill
in their friar's gowns, we should find that contrast even comic.
It would be like seeing, even afar off, the silhouettes of Don Quixote
and Sancho Panza, or of Falstaff and Master Slender. St. Francis
was a lean and lively little man; thin as a thread and vibrant
as a bowstring; and in his motions like an arrow from the bow.
All his life was a series of plunges and scampers;
darting after the beggar, dashing naked into the woods,
tossing himself into the strange ship, hurling himself into
the Sultan tent and offering to hurl himself into the fire.
In appearance he must have been like a thin brown skeleton
autumn leaf dancing eternally before the wind; but in truth it
was he that was the wind.

St. Thomas was a huge heavy bull of a man, fat and slow and quiet;
very mild and magnanimous but not very sociable; shy, even apart
from the humility of holiness; and abstracted, even apart from his
occasional and carefully concealed experiences of trance or ecstasy.
St. Francis was so fiery and even fidgety that the ecclesiastics,
before whom he appeared quite suddenly, thought he was a madman.
St. Thomas was so stolid that the scholars, in the schools which
he attended regularly, thought he was a dunce. Indeed, he was the sort
of schoolboy, not unknown, who would much rather be thought a dunce
than have his own dreams invaded, by more active or animated dunces.
This external contrast extends to almost every point in the
two personalities. It was the paradox of St. Francis that while he was
passionately fond of poems, he was rather distrustful of books.
It was the outstanding fact about St. Thomas that he loved books
and lived on books; that he lived the very life of the clerk
or scholar in The Canterbury Tales, who would rather have a hundred
books of Aristotle and his philosophy than any wealth the world
could give him. When asked for what he thanked God most,
he answered simply, "I have understood every page I ever read."
St. Francis was very vivid in his poems and rather vague in his documents;
St. Thomas devoted his whole life to documenting whole systems
of Pagan and Christian literature; and occasionally wrote a hymn
like a man taking a holiday. They saw the same problem from
different angles, of simplicity and subtlety; St. Francis thought
it would be enough to pour out his heart to the Mohammedans,
to persuade them not to worship Mahound. St. Thomas bothered
his head with every hair-splitting distinction and deduction,
about the Absolute or the Accident, merely to prevent them from
misunderstanding Aristotle. St. Francis was the son of a shopkeeper,
or middle class trader; and while his whole life was a revolt
against the mercantile life of his father, he retained none the less,
something of the quickness and social adaptability which makes
the market hum like a hive. In the common phrase, fond as he was
of green fields, he did not let the grass grow under his feet.
He was what American millionaires and gangsters call a live wire.
It is typical of the mechanistic moderns that, even when they
try to imagine a live thing, they can only think of a mechanical
metaphor from a dead thing. There is such a thing as a live worm;
but there is no such thing as a live wire. St. Francis would have
heartily agreed that he was a worm; but he was a very live worm.
Greatest of all foes to the go-getting ideal, he had certainly
abandoned getting, but he was still going. St. Thomas, on the
other hand, came out of a world where he might have enjoyed leisure,
and he remained one of those men whose labour has something of
the placidity of leisure. He was a hard worker, but nobody could
possibly mistake him for a hustler. He had something indefinable
about him, which marks those who work when they need not work.
For he was by birth a gentleman of a great house, and such
repose can remain as a habit, when it is no longer a motive.
But in him it was expressed only in its most amiable elements;
for instance, there was possibly something of it in his effortless
courtesy and patience. Every saint is a man before he is a saint;
and a saint may be made of every sort or kind of man; and most of us will
choose between these different types according to our different tastes.
But I will confess that, while the romantic glory of St. Francis
has lost nothing of its glamour for me, I have in later years grown
to feel almost as much affection, or in some aspects even more,
for this man who unconsciously inhabited a large heart and a
large head, like one inheriting a large house, and exercised there
an equally generous if rather more absent-minded hospitality.
There are moments when St. Francis, the most unworldly man who ever
walked the world, is almost too efficient for me.

St. Thomas Aquinas has recently reappeared, in the current culture
of the colleges and the salons, in a way that would have been quite
startling even ten years ago. And the mood that has concentrated
on him is doubtless very different from that which popularised
St. Francis quite twenty years ago.

The Saint is a medicine because he is an antidote. Indeed that
is why the saint is often a martyr; he is mistaken for a poison
because he is an antidote. He will generally be found restoring
the world to sanity by exaggerating whatever the world neglects,
which is by no means always the same element in every age.
Yet each generation seeks its saint by instinct; and he is
not what the people want, but rather what the people need.
This is surely the very much mistaken meaning of those words
to the first saints, "Ye are the salt of the earth,"
which caused the Ex-Kaiser to remark with all solemnity that
his beefy Germans were the salt of the earth; meaning thereby
merely that they were the earth's beefiest and therefore best.
But salt seasons and preserves beef, not because it is like beef;
but because it is very unlike it. Christ did not tell his apostles
that they were only the excellent people, or the only excellent people,
but that they were the exceptional people; the permanently incongruous
and incompatible people; and the text about the salt of the earth
is really as sharp and shrewd and tart as the taste of salt.
It is because they were the exceptional people, that they must
not lose their exceptional quality. "If salt lose its savour,
wherewith shall it be salted?" is a much more pointed question
than any mere lament over the price of the best beef.
If the world grows too worldly, it can be rebuked by the Church;
but if the Church grows too worldly, it cannot be adequately
rebuked for worldliness by the world.

Therefore it is the paradox of history that each generation
is converted by the saint who contradicts it most. St. Francis
had a curious and almost uncanny attraction for the Victorians;
for the nineteenth century English who seemed superficially to be
most complacent about their commerce and their common sense.
Not only a rather complacent Englishman like Matthew Arnold,
but even the English Liberals whom he criticised for
their complacency, began slowly to discover the mystery
of the Middle Ages through the strange story told in feathers
and flames in the hagiographical pictures of Giotto. There was
something in the story of St. Francis that pierced through all
those English qualities which are most famous and fatuous,
to all those English qualities which are most hidden and human:
the secret softness of heart; the poetical vagueness of mind;
the love of landscape and of animals. St. Francis of Assisi was
the only medieval Catholic who really became popular in England
on his own merits. It was largely because of a subconscious feeling
that the modern world had neglected those particular merits.
The English middle classes found their only missionary in
the figure, which of all types in the world they most despised;
an Italian beggar.

So, as the nineteenth century clutched at the Franciscan romance,
precisely because it had neglected romance, so the twentieth century
is already clutching at the Thomist rational theology, because it has
neglected reason. In a world that was too stolid, Christianity returned
in the form of a vagabond; in a world that has grown a great deal
too wild, Christianity has returned in the form of a teacher of logic.
In the world of Herbert Spencer men wanted a cure for indigestion;
in the world of Einstein they want a cure for vertigo.
In the first case, they dimly perceived the fact that it was after
a long fast that St. Francis sang the Song of the Sun and the praise
of the fruitful earth. In the second case, they already dimly
perceived that, even if they only want to understand Einstein,
it is necessary first to understand the use of the understanding.
They begin to see that, as the eighteenth century thought itself
the age of reason, and the nineteenth century thought itself
the age of common sense, the twentieth century cannot as yet even
manage to think itself anything but the age of uncommon nonsense.
In those conditions the world needs a saint; but above all,
it needs a philosopher. And these two cases do show that the world,
to do it justice, has an instinct for what it needs. The earth
was really very flat, for those Victorians who most vigorously
repeated that it was round, and Alverno of the Stigmata stood up
as a single mountain in the plain. But the earth is an earthquake,
a ceaseless and apparently endless earthquake, for the moderns
for whom Newton has been scrapped along with Ptolemy. And for them
there is something more steep and even incredible than a mountain;
a piece of really solid ground; the level of the level-headed man.
Thus in our time the two saints have appealed to two generations,
an age of romantics and an age of sceptics; yet in their own age
they were doing the same work; a work that has changed the world.

Again, it may be said truly that the comparison is idle,
and does not fit in well even as a fancy; since the men were not
properly even of the same generation or the same historic moment.
If two friars are to be presented as a pair of Heavenly Twins,
the obvious comparison is between St. Francis and St. Dominic.
The relations of St. Francis and St. Thomas were, at nearest,
those of uncle and nephew; and my fanciful excursus may appear
only a highly profane version of "Tommy make room for your uncle."
For if St. Francis and St. Dominic were the great twin brethren,
Thomas was obviously the first great son of St. Dominic, as was his
friend Bonaventure of St. Francis. Nevertheless, I have a reason
(indeed two reasons) for taking as a text the accident of two title-pages;
and putting St. Thomas beside St. Francis, instead of pairing him
off with Bonaventure the Franciscan. It is because the comparison,
remote and perverse as it may seem, is really a sort of short cut to
the heart of history; and brings us by the most rapid route to the real
question of the life and work of St. Thomas Aquinas. For most people
now have a rough but picturesque picture in their minds of the life
and work of St. Francis of Assisi. And the shortest way of telling
the other story is to say that, while the two men were thus a contrast
in almost every feature, they were really doing the same thing.
One of them was doing it in the world of the mind and the other in
the world of the worldly. But it was the same great medieval movement;
still but little understood. In a constructive sense, it was more
important than the Reformation. Nay, in a constructive sense,
it was the Reformation.

About this medieval movement there are two facts that must
first be emphasised. They are not, of course, contrary facts,
but they are perhaps answers to contrary fallacies.
First, in spite of all that was once said about superstition,
the Dark Ages and the sterility of Scholasticism, it was in every
sense a movement of enlargement, always moving towards greater
light and even greater liberty. Second, in spite of all
that was said later on about progress and the Renaissance and
forerunners of modern thought, it was almost entirely a movement
of orthodox theological enthusiasm, unfolded from within.
It was not a compromise with the world, or a surrender to
heathens or heretics, or even a mere borrowing of external aids,
even when it did borrow them. In so far as it did reach out
to the light of common day, it was like the action of a plant
which by its own force thrusts out its leaves into the sun;
not like the action of one who merely lets daylight into a prison.

In short, it was what is technically called a Development in doctrine.
But there seems to be a queer ignorance, not only about the technical,
but the natural meaning of the word Development. The critics
of Catholic theology seem to suppose that it is not so much
an evolution as an evasion; that it is at best an adaptation.
They fancy that its very success is the success of surrender.
But that is not the natural meaning of the word Development. When we
talk of a child being well-developed, we mean that he has grown
bigger and stronger with his own strength; not that he is padded
with borrowed pillows or walks on stilts to make him look taller.
When we say that a puppy develops into a dog, we do not mean
that his growth is a gradual compromise with a cat; we mean that
he becomes more doggy and not less. Development is the expansion
of all the possibilities and implications of a doctrine,
as there is time to distinguish them and draw them out;
and the point here is that the enlargement of medieval
theology was simply the full comprehension of that theology.
And it is of primary importance to realise this fact first,
about the time of the great Dominican and the first Franciscan,
because their tendency, humanistic and naturalistic in a hundred ways,
was truly the development of the supreme doctrine, which was
also the dogma of all dogmas. It is in this that the popular
poetry of St. Francis and the almost rationalistic prose of
St. Thomas appear most vividly as part of the same movement.
There are both great growths of Catholic development, depending upon
external things only as every living and growing thing depends on them;
that is, it digests and transforms them, but continues in its own
image and not in theirs. A Buddhist or a Communist might dream
of two things which simultaneously eat each other, as the perfect
form of unification. But it is not so with living things.
St. Francis was content to call himself the Troubadour of God;
but not content with the God of the Troubadours. St. Thomas did not
reconcile Christ to Aristotle; he reconciled Aristotle to Christ.

Yes; in spite of the contrasts that are as conspicuous and even comic
as the comparison between the fat man and the thin man, the tall
man and the short; in spite of the contrast between the vagabond
and the student, between the apprentice and the aristocrat,
between the book-hater and the book-lover, between the wildest
of all missionaries and the mildest of all professors, the great
fact of medieval history is that these two great men were doing
the same great work; one in the study and the other in the street.
They were not bringing something new into Christianity, in the sense
of something heathen or heretical into Christianity; on the contrary,
they were bringing Christianity into Christendom. But they were
bringing it back against the pressure of certain historic tendencies,
which had hardened into habits in many great schools and authorities
in the Christian Church; and they were using tools and weapons which
seemed to many people to be associated with heresy or heathenry.
St. Francis used Nature much as St. Thomas used Aristotle;
and to some they seemed to be using a Pagan goddess and a Pagan sage.
What they were really doing, and especially what St. Thomas
was really doing, will form the main matter of these pages;
but it is convenient to be able to compare him from the first with a
more popular saint; because we may thus sum up the substance of it
in the most popular way. Perhaps it would sound too paradoxical to say
that these two saints saved us from Spirituality; a dreadful doom.
Perhaps it may be misunderstood if I say that St. Francis,
for all his love of animals, saved us from being Buddhists;
and that St. Thomas, for all his love of Greek philosophy,
saved us from being Platonists. But it is best to say the truth
in its simplest form; that they both reaffirmed the Incarnation,
by bringing God back to earth.

This analogy, which may seem rather remote, is really perhaps
the best practical preface to the philosophy of St. Thomas. As we
shall have to consider more closely later on, the purely spiritual
or mystical side of Catholicism had very much got the upper hand
in the first Catholic centuries; through the genius of Augustine,
who had been a Platonist, and perhaps never ceased to be a Platonist;
through the transcendentalism of the supposed work of the Areopagite;
through the Oriental trend of the later Empire and something Asiatic
about the almost pontifical kinghood of Byzantium; all these things
weighed down what we should now roughly call the Western element;
though it has as good a right to be called the Christian element;
since its common sense is but the holy familiarity of the word
made flesh. Anyhow, it must suffice for the moment to say that
theologians had somewhat stiffened into a sort of Platonic pride
in the possession of intangible and untranslatable truths within;
as if no part of their wisdom had any root anywhere in the real world.
Now the first thing that Aquinas did, though by no means
the last, was to say to these pure transcendentalists something
substantially like this.

"Far be it from a poor friar to deny that you have these dazzling
diamonds in your head, all designed in the most perfect mathematical
shapes and shining with a purely celestial light; all there,
almost before you begin to think, let alone to see or hear or feel.
But I am not ashamed to say that I find my reason fed by my senses;
that I owe a great deal of what I think to what I see
and smell and taste and handle; and that so far as my reason
is concerned, I feel obliged to treat all this reality as real.
To be brief, in all humility, I do not believe that God meant
Man to exercise only that peculiar, uplifted and abstracted
sort of intellect which you are so fortunate as to possess:
but I believe that there is a middle field of facts which are
given by the senses to be the subject matter of the reason;
and that in that field the reason has a right to rule,
as the representative of God in Man. It is true that all this
is lower than the angels; but it is higher than the animals,
and all the actual material objects Man finds around him.
True, man also can be an object; and even a deplorable object.
But what man has done man may do; and if an antiquated old
heathen called Aristotle can help me to do it I will thank him
in all humility."

Thus began what is commonly called the appeal to Aquinas
and Aristotle. It might be called the appeal to Reason and
the Authority of the Senses. And it will be obvious that there
is a sort of popular parallel to it in the fact that St. Francis did
not only listen for the angels, but also listened to the birds.
And before we come to those aspects of St. Thomas that were very
severely intellectual, we may note that in him as in St. Francis
there is a preliminary practical element which is rather moral;
a sort of good and straightforward humility; and a readiness
in the man to regard even himself in some ways as an animal;
as St. Francis compared his body to a donkey. It may be said
that the contrast holds everywhere, even in zoological metaphor,
and that if St. Francis was like that common or garden donkey
who carried Christ into Jerusalem, St. Thomas, who was actually
compared to an ox, rather resembled that Apocalyptic monster
of almost Assyrian mystery; the winged bull. But again, we must
not let all that can be contrasted eclipse what was common;
or forget that neither of them would have been too proud to wait
as patiently as the ox and ass in the stable of Bethlehem.

There were of course, as we shall soon see, many other much more
curious and complicated ideas in the philosophy of St. Thomas;
besides this primary idea of a central common sense that is
nourished by the five senses. But at this stage, the point
of the story is not only that this was a Thomist doctrine,
but that it is a truly and eminently Christian doctrine.
For upon this point modern writers write a great deal of nonsense;
and show more than their normal ingenuity in missing the point.
Having assumed without argument, at the start, that all emancipation
must lead men away from religion and towards irreligion,
they have just blankly and blindly forgotten what is the outstanding
feature of the religion itself.

It will not be possible to conceal much longer from anybody
the fact that St. Thomas Aquinas was one of the great liberators
of the human intellect. The sectarians of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries were essentially obscurantists,
and they guarded an obscurantist legend that the Schoolman
was an obscurantist. This was wearing thin even in the
nineteenth century; it will be impossible in the twentieth.
It has nothing to do with the truth of their theology or his;
but only with the truth of historical proportion,
which begins to reappear as quarrels begin to die down.
Simply as one of the facts that bulk big in history, it is true
to say that Thomas was a very great man who reconciled religion
with reason, who expanded it towards experimental science,
who insisted that the senses were the windows of the soul
and that the reason had a divine right to feed upon facts,
and that it was the business of the Faith to digest the strong
meat of the toughest and most practical of pagan philosophies.
It is a fact, like the military strategy of Napoleon, that Aquinas
was thus fighting for all that is liberal and enlightened,
as compared with his rivals, or for that matter his successors
and supplanters. Those who, for other reasons, honestly accept
the final effect of the Reformation will none the less face
the fact, that it was the Schoolman who was the Reformer;
and that the later Reformers were by comparison reactionaries.
I use the word not as a reproach from my own stand-point,
but as a fact from the ordinary modern progressive standpoint.
For instance, they riveted the mind back to the literal
sufficiency of the Hebrew Scriptures; when St. Thomas had already
spoken of the Spirit giving grace to the Greek philosophies.
He insisted on the social duty of works; they only on the spiritual
duty of faith. It was the very life of the Thomist teaching
that Reason can be trusted: it was the very life of Lutheran
teaching that Reason is utterly untrustworthy.

Now when this fact is found to be a fact, the danger is that all
the unstable opposition will suddenly slide to the opposite extreme.
Those who up to that moment have been abusing the Schoolman as a dogmatist
will begin to admire the Schoolman as a Modernist who diluted dogma.
They will hastily begin to adorn his statue with all the faded
garlands of progress, to present him as a man in advance of his age,
which is always supposed to mean in agreement with our age;
and to load him with the unprovoked imputation of having produced
the modern mind. They will discover his attraction, and somewhat
hastily assume that he was like themselves, because he was attractive.
Up to a point this is pardonable enough; up to a point it has
already happened in the case of St. Francis. But it would not go
beyond a certain point in the case of St. Francis. Nobody, not even
a Freethinker like Renan or Matthew Arnold, would pretend that
St. Francis was anything but a devout Christian, or had any other
original motive except the imitation of Christ. Yet St. Francis
also had that liberating and humanising effect upon religion;
though perhaps rather on the imagination than the intellect.
But nobody says that St. Francis was loosening the Christian code,
when he was obviously tightening it; like the rope round
his friar's frock. Nobody says he merely opened the gates to
sceptical science, or sold the pass to heathen humanism, or looked
forward only to the Renaissance or met the Rationalists half way.
No biographer pretends that St. Francis, when he is reported to have
opened the Gospels at random and read the great texts about Poverty,
really only opened the Aeneid and practised the Sors Virgiliana
out of respect for heathen letters and learning. No historian
will pretend that St. Francis wrote The Canticle of the Sun in close
imitation of a Homeric Hymn to Apollo or loved birds because he had
carefully learned all the tricks of the Roman Augurs.

In short, most people, Christian or heathen, would now agree
that the Franciscan sentiment was primarily a Christian sentiment,
unfolded from within, out of an innocent (or, if you will,
ignorant) faith in the Christian religion itself. Nobody, as I
have said, says that St. Francis drew his primary inspiration
from Ovid. It would be every bit as false to say that Aquinas
drew his primary inspiration from Aristotle. The whole lesson
of his life, especially of his early life, the whole story
of his childhood and choice of a career, shows that he was
supremely and directly devotional; and that he passionately loved
the Catholic worship long before he found he had to fight for it.
But there is also a special and clinching instance of this
which once more connects St. Thomas with St. Francis. It seems
to be strangely forgotten that both these saints were in actual
fact imitating a Master, who was not Aristotle let alone Ovid,
when they sanctified the senses or the simple things of nature;
when St. Francis walked humbly among the beasts or St. Thomas
debated courteously among the Gentiles.

Those who miss this, miss the point of the religion,
even if it be a superstition; nay, they miss the very point they
would call most superstitious. I mean the whole staggering
story of the God-Man in the Gospels. A few even miss it
touching St. Francis and his unmixed and unlearned appeal
to the Gospels. They will talk of the readiness of St. Francis
to learn from the flowers or the birds as something that can
only point onward to the Pagan Renaissance. Whereas the fact
stares them in the face; first, that it points backwards
to the New Testament, and second that it points forward, if it
points to anything, to the Aristotelian realism of the Summa
of St. Thomas Aquinas. They vaguely imagine that anybody
who is humanising divinity must be paganising divinity without
seeing that the humanising of divinity is actually the strongest
and starkest and most incredible dogma in the Creed. St. Francis
was becoming more like Christ, and not merely more like Buddha,
when he considered the lilies of the field or the fowls of the air;
and St. Thomas was becoming more of a Christian, and not merely
more of an Aristotelian, when he insisted that God and the image
of God had come in contact through matter with a material world.
These saints were, in the most exact sense of the term, Humanists;
because they were insisting on the immense importance
of the human being in the theological scheme of things.
But they were not Humanists marching along a path of progress
that leads to Modernism and general scepticism; for in their
very Humanism they were affirming a dogma now often regarded
as the most superstitious Superhumanism. They were strengthening
that staggering doctrine of Incarnation, which the sceptics
find it hardest to believe. There cannot be a stiffer piece
of Christian divinity than the divinity of Christ.

This is a point that is here very much to the point; that these men
became more orthodox, when they became more rational or natural.
Only by being thus orthodox could they be thus rational and natural.
In other words, what may really be called a liberal theology
was unfolded from within, from out of the original mysteries
of Catholicism. But that liberality had nothing to do with liberalism;
in fact it cannot even now coexist with liberalism [(footnote) I use
the word liberalism here in the strictly limited theological sense,
in which Newman and other theologians use it. In its popular political
sense, as I point out later, St. Thomas rather tended to be a Liberal,
especially for his time]. The matter is so cogent, that I will take
one or two special ideas of St. Thomas to illustrate what I mean.
Without anticipating the elementary sketch of Thomism that must
be made later, the following points may be noted here.

For instance, it was a very special idea of St. Thomas that Man
is to be studied in his whole manhood; that a man is not a man
without his body, just as he is not a man without his soul.
A corpse is not a man; but also a ghost is not a man.
The earlier school of Augustine and even of Anselm had
rather neglected this, treating the soul as the only
necessary treasure, wrapped for a time in a negligible napkin.
Even here they were less orthodox in being more spiritual.
They sometimes hovered on the edge of those Eastern deserts that
stretch away to the land of transmigration where the essential soul
may pass through a hundred unessential bodies; reincarnated even
in the bodies of beasts or birds. St. Thomas stood up stoutly
for the fact that a man's body is his body as his mind is his mind;
and that he can only be a balance and union of the two.
Now this is in some ways a naturalistic notion, very near
to the modern respect for material things; a praise of the body
that might be sung by Walt Whitman or justified by D. H. Lawrence:
a thing that might be called Humanism or even claimed
by Modernism. In fact, it may be Materialism; but it is the flat
contrary of Modernism. It is bound up, in the modern view,
with the most monstrous, the most material, and therefore the most
miraculous of miracles. It is specially connected with the most
startling sort of dogma, which the Modernist can least accept;
the Resurrection of the Body.

Or again, his argument for Revelation is quite rationalistic;
and on the other side, decidedly democratic and popular.
His argument for Revelation is not in the least an argument
against Reason. On the contrary, he seems inclined to admit
that truth could be reached by a rational process, if only it
were rational enough; and also long enough. Indeed, something in
his character, which I have called elsewhere optimism, and for which
I know no other approximate term, led him rather to exaggerate
the extent to which all men would ultimately listen to reason.
In his controversies, he always assumes that they will listen
to reason. That is, he does emphatically believe that men can
be convinced by argument; when they reach the end of the argument.
Only his common sense also told him that the argument never ends.
I might convince a man that matter as the origin of Mind
is quite meaningless, if he and I were very fond of each
other and fought each other every night for forty years.
But long before he was convinced on his deathbed, a thousand
other materialists could have been born, and nobody can explain
everything to everybody. St. Thomas takes the view that the souls
of all the ordinary hard-working and simple-minded people are
quite as important as the souls of thinkers and truth-seekers;
and he asks how all these people are possibly to find time
for the amount of reasoning that is needed to find truth.
The whole tone of the passage shows both a respect for
scientific enquiry and a strong sympathy with the average man.
His argument for Revelation is not an argument against Reason;
but it is an argument for Revelation. The conclusion he draws
from it is that men must receive the highest moral truths in a
miraculous manner; or most men would not receive them at all.
His arguments are rational and natural; but his own deduction
is all for the supernatural; and, as is common in the case
of his argument, it is not easy to find any deduction except
his own deduction. And when we come to that, we find it
is something as simple as St. Francis himself could desire;
the message from heaven; the story that is told out of the sky;
the fairytale that is really true.

It is plainer still in more popular problems like Free Will.
If St. Thomas stands for one thing more than another, it is what
may be called subordinate sovereignties or autonomies. He was,
if the flippancy may be used, a strong Home Ruler. We might even say
he was always defending the independence of dependent things. He insisted
that such a thing could have its own rights in its own region.
It was his attitude to the Home Rule of the reason and even the senses;
"Daughter am I in my father's house; but mistress in my own."
And in exactly this sense he emphasised a certain dignity in Man,
which was sometimes rather swallowed up in the purely theistic
generalisations about God. Nobody would say he wanted to divide
Man from God; but he did want to distinguish Man from God. In this
strong sense of human dignity and liberty there is much that can
be and is appreciated now as a noble humanistic liberality.
But let us not forget that its upshot was that very Free Will, or moral
responsibility of Man, which so many modern liberals would deny.
Upon this sublime and perilous liberty hang heaven and hell, and all
the mysterious drama of the soul. It is distinction and not division;
but a man can divide himself from God, which, in a certain aspect,
is the greatest distinction of all.

Again, though it is a more metaphysical matter, which must
be mentioned later, and then only too slightly, it is the same
with the old philosophical dispute about the Many and the One.
Are things so different that they can never be classified;
or so unified that they can never be distinguished?
Without pretending to answer such questions here, we may say broadly
that St. Thomas comes down definitely on the side of Variety,
as a thing that is real as well as Unity. In this, and questions
akin to this, he often departs from the great Greek philosophers
who were sometimes his models; and entirely departs from the
great Oriental philosophers who are in some sense his rivals.
He seems fairly certain that the difference between chalk
and cheese, or pigs and pelicans, is not a mere illusion,
or dazzle of our bewildered mind blinded by a single light;
but is pretty much what we all feel it to be. It may be said
that this is mere common sense; the common sense that pigs
are pigs; to that extent related to the earthbound Aristotelian
common sense; to a human and even a heathen common sense.
But note that here again the extremes of earth and heaven meet.
It is also connected with the dogmatic Christian idea of the Creation;
of a Creator who created pigs, as distinct from a Cosmos
that merely evolved them.

In all these cases we see repeated the point stated at the start.
The Thomist movement in metaphysics, like the Franciscan movement
in morals and manners, was an enlargement and a liberation,
it was emphatically a growth of Christian theology from within;
it was emphatically not a shrinking of Christian theology under
heathen or even human influences. The Franciscan was free to be
a friar, instead of being bound to be a monk. But he was more
of a Christian, more of a Catholic, even more of an ascetic.
So the Thomist was free to be an Aristotelian, instead of being
bound to be an Augustinian. But he was even more of a theologian;
more of an orthodox theologian; more of a dogmatist, in having
recovered through Aristotle the most defiant of all dogmas,
the wedding of God with Man and therefore with Matter. Nobody can
understand the greatness of the thirteenth century, who does
not realise that it was a great growth of new things produced
by a living thing. In that sense it was really bolder and freer
than what we call the Renaissance, which was a resurrection
of old things discovered in a dead thing. In that sense
medievalism was not a Renascence, but rather a Nascence. It did
not model its temples upon the tombs, or call up dead gods
from Hades. It made an architecture as new as modern engineering;
indeed it still remains the most modern architecture. Only it
was followed at the Renaissance by a more antiquated architecture.
In that sense the Renaissance might be called the Relapse. Whatever may
be said of the Gothic and the Gospel according to St. Thomas,
they were not a Relapse. It was a new thrust like the titanic
thrust of Gothic engineering; and its strength was in a God
who makes all things new.

In a word, St. Thomas was making Christendom more Christian
in making it more Aristotelian. This is not a paradox but a
plain truism, which can only be missed by those who may know
what is meant by an Aristotelian, but have simply forgotten
what is meant by a Christian. As compared with a Jew,
a Moslem, a Buddhist, a Deist, or most obvious alternatives,
a Christian means a man who believes that deity or sanctity
has attached to matter or entered the world of the senses.
Some modern writers, missing this simple point, have even talked
as if the acceptance of Aristotle was a sort of concession
to the Arabs; like a Modernist vicar making a concession to
the Agnostics. They might as well say that the Crusades were
a concession to the Arabs as say that Aquinas rescuing Aristotle
from Averrhoes was a concession to the Arabs. The Crusaders
wanted to recover the place where the body of Christ had been,
because they believed, rightly or wrongly, that it was a
Christian place. St. Thomas wanted to recover what was in essence
the body of Christ itself; the sanctified body of the Son of Man
which had become a miraculous medium between heaven and earth.
And he wanted the body, and all its senses, because he believed,
rightly or wrongly, that it was a Christian thing. It might be
a humbler or homelier thing than the Platonic mind; that is why
it was Christian. St. Thomas was, if you will, taking the lower
road when he walked in the steps of Aristotle. So was God,
when He worked in the workshop of Joseph.

Lastly, these two great men were not only united to each other
but separated from most of their comrades and contemporaries
by the very revolutionary character of their own revolution.
In 1215, Dominic Guzman, the Castilian, founded an Order very
similar to that of Francis; and, by a most curious coincidence
of history, at almost exactly the same moment as Francis. It was
directed primarily to preaching the Catholic philosophy to the
Albigensian heretics; whose own philosophy was one of the many forms
of that Manicheanism with which this story is much concerned.
It had its roots in the remote mysticism and moral detachment
of the East; and it was therefore inevitable that the Dominicans
should be rather more a brotherhood of philosophers,
where the Franciscans were by comparison a brotherhood of poets.
For this and other reasons, St. Dominic and his followers are little
known or understood in modern England; they were involved eventually
in a religious war which followed on a theological argument;
and there was something in the atmosphere of our country,
during the last century or so, which made the theological
argument even more incomprehensible than the religious war.
The ultimate effect is in some ways curious; because St. Dominic,
even more than St. Francis, was marked by that intellectual independence,
and strict standard of virtue and veracity, which Protestant
cultures are wont to regard as specially Protestant. It was
of him that the tale was told, and would certainly have been
told more widely among us if it had been told of a Puritan,
that the Pope pointed to his gorgeous Papal Palace and said,
"Peter can no longer say `Silver and gold have I none'";
and the Spanish friar answered, "No, and neither can he now say,
`Rise and walk.'"

Thus there is another way in which the popular story of St. Francis
can be a sort of bridge between the modern and medieval world.
And it is based on that very fact already mentioned:
that St. Francis and St. Dominic stand together in history
as having done the same work, and yet are divided in English
popular tradition in the most strange and startling way.
In their own lands they are like Heavenly Twins, irradiating the same
light from heaven, seeming sometimes to be two saints in one halo,
as another order depicted Holy Poverty as two knights on one horse.
In the legends of our own land, they are about as much united
as St. George and the Dragon. Dominic is still conceived
as an Inquisitor devising thumbscrews; while Francis is
already accepted as a humanitarian deploring mousetraps.
It seems, for instance, quite natural to us, and full of the same
associations of flowers and starry fancies, that the name of Francis
should belong to Francis Thompson. But I fancy it would seem
less natural to call him Dominic Thompson; or find that a man,
with a long record of popular sympathies and practical tenderness
to the poor, could bear such a name as Dominic Plater. It would
sound as if he had been called Torquemada Thompson.

Now there must be something wrong behind this contradiction;
turning those who were allies at home into antagonists abroad.
On any other question, the fact would be apparent to common sense.
Suppose English Liberals or Free-Traders found that, in remote
parts of China, it was generally held that Cobden was a cruel
monster but Bright a stainless saint. They would think there was
a mistake somewhere. Suppose that American Evangelicals learned
that in France or Italy, or other civilizations impenetrable
by Moody and Sankey, there was a popular belief that Moody was
an angel but Sankey a devil; they would guess that there must
be a muddle somewhere. Some other later accidental distinction
must have cut across the main course of a historical tendency.
These parallels are not so fantastic as they may sound.
Cobden and Bright have actually been called "child-torturers",
in anger at their alleged callousness about the evils amended
by the Factory Acts; and some would call the Moody and Sankey sermon
on Hell a hellish exhibition. All that is a matter of opinion;
but both men held the same sort of opinion, and there must
be a blunder in an opinion that separates them so completely.
And of course there is a complete blunder in the legend
about St. Dominic. Those who know anything about St. Dominic
know that he was a missionary and not a militant persecutor;
that his contribution to religion was the Rosary and not the Rack;
that his whole career is meaningless, unless we understand that his
famous victories were victories of persuasion and not persecution.
He did believe in the justification of persecution; in the sense
that the secular arm could repress religious disorders.
So did everybody else believe in persecution; and none more than
the elegant blasphemer, Frederick II who believed in nothing else.
Some say he was the first to burn heretics; but anyhow, he thought it
was one of his imperial privileges and duties to persecute heretics.
But to talk as if Dominic did nothing but persecute heretics,
is like blaming Father Matthew, who persuaded millions of
drunkards to take a temperance pledge, because the accepted law
sometimes allowed a drunkard to be arrested by a policeman.
It is to miss the whole point; which is that this particular
man had a genius for conversion, quite apart from compulsion.
The real difference between Francis and Dominic, which is no discredit
to either of them, is that Dominic did happen to be confronted
with a huge campaign for the conversion of heretics, while Francis
had only the more subtle task of the conversion of human beings.
It is an old story that, while we may need somebody like Dominic
to convert the heathen to Christianity, we are in even greater
need of somebody like Francis, to convert the Christians
to Christianity. Still, we must not lose sight of St. Dominic's
special problem, which was that of dealing with a whole population,
kingdoms and cities and countrysides, that had drifted from
the Faith and solidified into strange and abnormal new religions.
That he did win back masses of men so deceived, merely by talking
and preaching, remains an enormous triumph worthy of a colossal trophy.
St. Francis is called humane because he tried to convert
Saracens and failed; St. Dominic is called bigoted and besotted
because he tried to convert Albigensians and succeeded.
But we happen to be in a curious nook or corner of the hills
of history, from which we can see Assisi and the Umbrian hills,
but are out of sight of the vast battle-field of the Southern Crusade;
the miracle of Muret and the greater miracle of Dominic,
when the roots of the Pyrenees and the shores of the Mediterranean
saw defeated the Asiatic despair.

But there is an earlier and more essential link between Dominic
and Francis, which is more to the immediate purpose of this book.
They were in later times bracketed in glory because they were in
their own time bracketed in infamy; or at least in unpopularity.
For they did the most unpopular thing that men can do;
they started a popular movement. A man who dares to make a direct
appeal to the populace always makes a long series of enemies--
beginning with the populace. In proportion as the poor begin
to understand that he means to help and not hurt them, the solid
classes above begin to close in, resolved to hinder and not help.
The rich, and even the learned, sometimes feel not unreasonably
that the thing will change the world, not only in its worldliness
or its worldly wisdom, but to some extent perhaps in its real wisdom.
Such a feeling was not unnatural in this case; when we consider,
for instance, St. Francis's really reckless attitude about
rejecting books and scholarship; or the tendency that the Friars
afterwards showed to appeal to the Pope in contempt of local
bishops and ecclesiastical officers. In short, St. Dominic and
St. Francis created a Revolution, quite as popular and unpopular
as the French Revolution. But it is very hard today to feel
that even the French Revolution was as fresh as it really was.
The Marseillaise once sounded like the human voice of the volcano or
the dance-tune of the earthquake, and the kings of the earth trembled,
some fearing that the heavens might fall; some fearing far more that
justice might be done. The Marseillaise is played today at diplomatic
dinner-parties, where smiling monarchs meet beaming millionaires,
and is rather less revolutionary than "Home Sweet Home." Also,
it is highly pertinent to recall, the modern revolutionists
would now call the revolt of the French Jacobins insufficient,
just as they would call the revolt of the Friars insufficient.
They would say that neither went far enough; but many,
in their own day, thought they went very much too far.
In the case of the Friars, the higher orders of the State,
and to some extent even of the Church, were profoundly shocked
at such a loosening of wild popular preachers among the people.
It is not at all easy for us to feel that distant events were
thus disconcerting and even disreputable. Revolutions turn
into institutions; revolts that renew the youth of old societies
in their turn grow old; and the past, which was full of new things,
of splits and innovations and insurrections, seems to us a single
texture of tradition.

But if we wish for one fact that will make vivid this shock of change
and challenge, and show how raw and ragged, how almost rowdy
in its reckless novelty, how much of the gutter and how remote from
refined life, this experiment of the Friars did really seem to many
in its own day, there is here a very relevant fact to reveal it.
It shows how much a settled and already ancient Christendom did
feel it as something like the end of an age; and how the very roads
of the earth seem to shake under the feet of the new and nameless army;
the march of the Beggars. A mystic nursery rhyme suggests
the atmosphere of such a crisis: "Hark, hark, the dogs do bark;
the Beggars are coming to town." There were many towns that almost
fortified themselves against them and many watchdogs of property
and rank did really bark, and hark loudly, when those Beggars went by;
but louder was the singing of the Beggars who sang their Canticle
to the Sun, and louder the baying of the Hounds of Heaven;
the Domini canes of the medieval pun; the Dogs of God. And if we
would measure how real and rending seemed that revolution,
what a break with the past, we can see it in the first and most
extraordinary event in the life of St. Thomas Aquinas.

--/--

II

THE RUNAWAY ABBOT


Thomas Aquinas, in a strange and rather symbolic manner, sprang out
of the very centre of the civilised world of his time; the central knot
or coil of the powers then controlling Christendom. He was closely
connected with all of them; even with some of them that might well be
described as destroying Christendom. The whole religious quarrel,
the whole international quarrel, was for him, a family quarrel.
He was born in the purple, almost literally on the hem of the
imperial purple; for his own cousin was the Holy Roman Emperor. He could
have quartered half the kingdoms of Europe on his shield--
if he had not thrown away the shield. He was Italian and French
and German and in every way European. On one side, he inherited
from the energy that made the episode of the Normans, whose strange
organising raids rang and rattled like flights of arrows in the corners
of Europe and the ends of the earth; one flight of them following
Duke William far northward through the blinding snows to Chester;
another treading in Greek and Punic footsteps through the island
of Sicily to the gates of Syracuse. Another bond of blood bound him to
the great Emperors of the Rhine and Danube who claimed to wear the crown
of Charlemagne; Red Barbarossa, who sleeps under the rushing river,
was his great uncle, and Frederick II, the Wonder of the World,
his second cousin, and yet he held by a hundred more intimate ties
to the lively inner life, the local vivacity, the little walled
nations and the thousand shrines of Italy. While inheriting this
physical kinship with the Emperor, he maintained far more firmly
his spiritual kinship with the Pope. He understood the meaning
of Rome, and in what sense it was still ruling the world;
and was not likely to think that the German Emperors of his times
any more than the Greek Emperors of a previous time, would be able
to be really Roman in defiance of Rome. To this cosmopolitan
comprehensiveness in his inherited position, he afterwards added
many things of his own, that made for mutual understanding among
the peoples, and gave him something of the character of an ambassador
and interpreter. He travelled a great deal; he was not only
well known in Paris and the German universities, but he almost
certainly visited England; probably he went to Oxford and London;
and it has been said that we may be treading in the footsteps of him
and his Dominican companions, whenever we go down by the river
to the railway-station that still bears the name of Black-friars. But
the truth applies to the travels of his mind as well as his body.
He studied the literature even of the opponents of Christianity
much more carefully and impartially than was then the fashion;
he really tried to understand the Arabian Aristotelianism of the Moslems;
and wrote a highly humane and reasonable treatise on the problem of
the treatment of the Jews. He always attempted to look at everything
from the inside; but he was certainly lucky in having been born
in the inside of the state system and the high politics of his day.
What he thought of them may perhaps be inferred from the next passage
in his history.

St. Thomas might thus stand very well for the International Man,
to borrow the title of a modern book. But it is only fair to remember
that he lived in the International Age; in a world that was international
in a sense not to be suggested in any modern book, or by any modern man.
If I remember right, the modern candidate for the post of
International Man was Cobden, who was an almost abnormally national man,
a narrowly national man; a very fine type, but one which can hardly
be imagined except as moving between Midhurst and Manchester. He had
an international policy and he indulged in international travel;
but if he always remained a national person, it was because he remained
a normal person; that is normal to the nineteenth century. But it was not
so in the thirteenth century. There a man of international influence,
like Cobden, could be also almost a man of international nationality.
The names of nations and cities and places of origin did not
connote that deep division that is the mark of the modern world.
Aquinas as a student was nicknamed the ox of Sicily, though his birthplace
was near Naples; but this did not prevent the city of Paris regarding
him as simply and solidly as a Parisian, because he had been a glory
of the Sorbonne, that it proposed to bury his bones when he was dead.
Or take a more obvious contrast with modern times. Consider what is
meant in most modern talk by a German Professor. And then realise
that the greatest of all German Professors, Albertus Magnus, was himself
one of the glories of the University of Paris; and it was in Paris
that Aquinas supported him. Think of the modern German Professor being
famous throughout Europe for his popularity when lecturing in Paris.

Thus, if there was war in Christendom, it was international war
in the special sense in which we speak of international peace.
It was not the war of two nations; but the war of two internationalisms:
of two World States: the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire.
The political crisis in Christendom affected the life of Aquinas at
the start in one sharp disaster, and afterwards in many indirect ways.
It had many elements; the Crusades; the embers of the Albigensian
pessimism over which St. Dominic had triumphed in argument and Simon
de Montfort in arms; the dubious experiment of an Inquisition
which started from it; and many other things. But, broadly speaking,
it is the period of the great duel between the Popes and the Emperors,
that is the German Emperors who called themselves Holy Roman Emperors,
the House of Hohenstaufen. The particular period of the life
of Aquinas, however, is entirely overshadowed by the particular
Emperor who was himself more an Italian than a German; the brilliant
Frederick II who was called the Wonder of the World. It may be reminded,
in passing, that Latin was the most living of languages at this time,
and we often feel a certain weakness in the necessary translation.
For I seem to have read somewhere that the word used was stronger
than the Wonder of the World; that his medieval title was Stupor Mundi,
which is more exactly the Stupefaction of the World. Something of
the sort may be noted later of philosophical language, and the weakness
of translating a word like Ens by a word like Being. But for the moment
the parenthesis has another application; for it might well be said
that Frederick did indeed stupefy the world; that there was something
stunning and blinding about the blows he struck at religion, as in
that blow which almost begins the biography of Thomas Aquinas. He may
also be called stupefying in another sense; in that his very brilliancy
has made some of his modern admirers very stupid.

For Frederick II is the first figure, and that a rather fierce
and ominous figure, who rides across the scene of his cousin's
birth and boyhood: a scene of wild fighting and of fire.
And it may be allowable to pause for a parenthesis upon his name,
for two particular reasons: first that his romantic reputation,
even among modern historians, covers and partly conceals the true
background of the times and second that the tradition in question
directly involves the whole status of St. Thomas Aquinas. The nineteenth
century view, still so strangely called the modern view by many moderns,
touching such a man as Frederick II was well summed up by some
solid Victorian, I think by Macaulay; Frederick was "a statesman
in an age of Crusaders; a philosopher in an age of monks."
It may be noted that the antithesis invokes the assumption that
a Crusader cannot easily be a statesman; and that a monk cannot
easily be a philosopher. Yet, to take only that special instance,
it would be easy to point out that the cases of two famous men
in the age of Frederick II would alone be strong enough to upset
both the assumption and the antithesis. St. Louis, though a Crusader
and even an unsuccessful Crusader, was really a far more successful
statesman than Frederick II. By the test of practical politics,
he popularised, solidified and sanctified the most powerful government
in Europe, the order and concentration of the French Monarchy;
the single dynasty that steadily increased its strength for five
hundred years up to the glories of the Grand Siecle whereas
Frederick went down in ruin before the Papacy and the Republics
and a vast combination of priests and peoples. The Holy Roman Empire
he wished to found was an ideal rather in the sense of a dream;
it was certainly never a fact like the square and solid State
which the French statesman did found. Or, to take another example
from the next generation, one of the most strictly practical
statesmen in history, our own Edward I, was also a Crusader.

The other half of the antithesis is even more false and here even
more relevant. Frederick II was not a philosopher in the age of monks.
He was a gentleman dabbling in philosophy in the age of the monk
Thomas Aquinas. He was doubtless an intelligent and even
brilliant gentleman; but if he did leave any notes on the nature
of Being and Becoming, or the precise sense in which realities
can be relative to Reality, I do not imagine those notes are
now exciting undergraduates at Oxford or literary men in Paris,
let alone the little groups of Thomists who have already
sprung up even in New York and Chicago. It is no disrespect
to the Emperor to say that he certainly was not a philosopher
in the sense in which Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher,
let alone so great or so universal or so permanent a philosopher.
And Thomas Aquinas lived in that very age of monks, and in that very
world of monks, which Macaulay talks of as if it were incapable
of producing philosophy.

We need not dwell on the causes of this Victorian prejudice,
which some still think so well advanced. It arose mainly
from one narrow or insular notion; that no man could possibly
be building up the best of the modern world, if he went with
the main movement of the medieval world. These Victorians
thought that only the heretic had ever helped humanity;
only the man who nearly wrecked medieval civilisation
could be of any use in constructing modern civilisation.
Hence came a score of comic fables; as that the cathedrals
must have been built by a secret society of Freemasons;
or that the epic of Dante must be a cryptogram referring
to the political hopes of Garibaldi. But the generalisation
is not in its nature probable and it is not in fact true.
This medieval period was rather specially the period of communal
or corporate thinking, and in some matters it was really
rather larger than the individualistic modern thinking.
This could be proved in a flash from the mere fact of the use
of the word 'statesman.' To a man of Macaulay's period,
a statesman always meant a man who maintained the more narrow
national interests of his own state against other states,
as Richelieu maintained those of France, or Chatham of England,
or Bismarck of Prussia. But if a man actually wanted
to defend all these states, to combine all these states,
to make a living brotherhood of all these states, to resist
some outer peril as from the Mongolian millions--then that
poor devil, of course, could not really be called a statesman.
He was only a Crusader.

In this way it is but fair to Frederick II to say that he was a Crusader;
if he was also rather like an Anti-Crusader. Certainly he was
an international statesman. Indeed he was a particular type,
which may be called an international soldier. The international
soldier is always very much disliked by internationalists.
They dislike Charlemagne and Charles V and Napoleon; and everybody who
tried to create the World State for which they cry aloud day and night.
But Frederick is more dubious and less doubted; he was supposed to be
the head of the Holy Roman Empire; and accused of wanting to be the head
of a very Unholy Roman Empire. But even if he were Antichrist,
he would still be a witness to the unity of Christendom.

Nevertheless, there is a queer quality in that time;
which, while it was international was also internal
and intimate. War, in the wide modern sense, is possible,
not because more men disagree, but because more men agree.
Under the peculiarly modern coercions, such as Compulsory Education
and Conscription, there are such very large peaceful areas,
that they can all agree upon War. In that age men disagreed
even about war; and peace might break out anywhere.
Peace was interrupted by feuds and feuds by pardons.
Individuality wound in and out of a maze; spiritual extremes
were walled up with one another in one little walled town;
and we see the great soul of Dante divided, a cloven flame;
loving and hating his own city. This individual complexity
is intensely vivid in the particular story we have here to tell,
in a very rough outline. If anyone wishes to know what is meant
by saying that action was more individual, and indeed incalculable,
he may well note some of the stages in the story of the great
feudal house of Aquino, which had its castle not far
from Naples. In the mere hasty anecdote we have now to tell,
we shall note in succession five or six stages of this sort.
Landulf of Aquino, a heavy feudal fighter typical of the times,
rode in armour behind the imperial banners, and attacked
a monastery, because the Emperor regarded the monastery as a
fortress held for his enemy the Pope. Later, we shall see
the same feudal Lord sent his own son to the same monastery;
probably on the friendly advice of the same Pope. Later still,
another of his sons, entirely on his own, rebelled against
the Emperor, and went over to the armies of the Pope. For this
he was executed by the Emperor, with promptitude and despatch.
I wish we knew more about that brother of Thomas Aquinas who risked
and lost his life to support the cause of the Pope which was
in all human essentials the cause of the People. He may not have
been a saint; but he must have had some qualities of a martyr.
Meanwhile, two other brothers, still ardent and active apparently
in the service of the Emperor who killed the third brother,
themselves proceeded to kidnap another brother, because they did not
approve of his sympathy with the new social movements in religion.
That is the sort of tangle in which this one distinguished
medieval family found itself. It was not a war of nations,
but it was a rather widespread family quarrel.

The reason for dwelling here, however, upon the position
of the Emperor Frederick, as a type of his time, in his culture
and his violence, in his concern for philosophy and his quarrel
with religion, is not merely concerned with these things.
He may here be the first figure that crosses the stage,
because one of his very typical actions precipitated
the first action, or obstinate inaction, which began
the personal adventures of Thomas Aquinas in this world.
The story also illustrates the extraordinary tangle in which
a family like that of the Count of Aquino found itself;
being at once so close to the Church and so much at odds with it.
For Frederick II, in the course of these remarkable manoeuvres,
military and political, which ranged from burning heretics to
allying himself with Saracens, made a swoop as of a predatory eagle
(and the Imperial eagle was rather predatory) upon a very large
and wealthy monastery; the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino;
and stormed and sacked the place.

Some miles from the monastery of Monte Cassino stood a great crag
or cliff, standing up like a pillar of the Apennines. It was crowned
with a castle that bore the name of The Dry Rock, and was the eyrie
in which the eaglets of the Aquino branch of the Imperial family
were nursed to fly. Here lived Count Landulf of Aquino, who was
the father of Thomas Aquinas and some seven other sons. In military
affairs he doubtless rode with his family, in the feudal manner;
and apparently had something to do with the destruction of the monastery.
But it was typical of the tangle of the time, that Count Landulf
seems afterwards to have thought that it would be a tactful and
delicate act to put in his son Thomas as Abbot of the monastery.
This would be of the nature of a graceful apology to the Church,
and also, it would appear, the solution of a family difficulty.

For it had been long apparent to Count Landulf that nothing could be done
with his seventh son Thomas, except to make him an Abbot or something
of that kind. Born in 1226, he had from childhood a mysterious
objection to becoming a predatory eagle, or even to taking an ordinary
interest in falconry or tilting or any other gentlemanly pursuits.
He was a large and heavy and quiet boy, and phenomenally silent,
scarcely opening his mouth except to say suddenly to his schoolmaster
in an explosive manner, "What is God?" The answer is not recorded but it
is probable that the asker went on worrying out answers for himself.
The only place for a person of this kind was the Church and presumably the
cloister; and so far as that went, there was no particular difficulty.
It was easy enough for a man in Count Landulf's position to arrange
with some monastery for his son to be received there; and in this
particular case he thought it would be a good idea if he were received
in some official capacity, that would be worthy of his worldly rank.
So everything was smoothly arranged for Thomas Aquinas becoming a monk,
which would seem to be what he himself wanted; and sooner or later
becoming Abbot of Monte Cassino. And then the curious thing happened.

In so far as we may follow rather dim and disputed events,
it would seem that the young Thomas Aquinas walked into his father's
castle one day and calmly announced that he had become one of the
Begging Friars, of the new order founded by Dominic the Spaniard;
much as the eldest son of the squire might go home and airily inform
the family that he had married a gypsy; or the heir of a Tory Duke
state that he was walking tomorrow with the Hunger Marchers organised
by alleged Communists. By this, as has been noted already, we may
pretty well measure the abyss between the old monasticism and the new,
and the earthquake of the Dominican and Franciscan revolution.
Thomas had appeared to wish to be a Monk; and the gates were silently
opened to him and the long avenues of the abbey, the very carpet,
so to speak, laid for him up to the throne of the mitred abbot.
He said he wished to be a Friar, and his family flew at him
like wild beasts; his brothers pursued him along the public roads,
half-rent his friar's frock from his back and finally locked him
up in a tower like a lunatic.

It is not very easy to trace the course of this furious family quarrel,
and how it eventually spent itself against the tenacity
of the young Friar; according to some stories, his mother's
disapproval was short-lived and she went over to his side;
but it was not only his relatives that were embroiled.
We might say that the central governing class of Europe,
which partly consisted of his family, were in a turmoil over the
deplorable youth; even the Pope was asked for tactful intervention,
and it was at one time proposed that Thomas should be allowed
to wear the Dominican habit while acting as Abbot in the
Benedictine Abbey. To many this would seem a tactful compromise;
but it did not commend itself to the narrow medieval mind
of Thomas Aquinas. He indicated sharply that he wished to be
a Dominican in the Dominican Order, and not at a fancy-dress ball;
and the diplomatic proposal appears to have been dropped.

Thomas of Aquino wanted to be a Friar. It was a staggering
fact to his contemporaries; and it is rather an intriguing fact
even to us; for this desire, limited literally and strictly
to this statement, was the one practical thing to which his
will was clamped with adamantine obstinacy till his death.
He would not be an Abbot; he would not be a Monk; he would not
even be a Prior or ruler in his own fraternity; he would not be
a prominent or important Friar; he would be a Friar. It is as if
Napoleon had insisted on remaining a private soldier all his life.
Something in this heavy, quiet, cultivated, rather academic
gentleman would not be satisfied till he was, by fixed authoritative
proclamation and official pronouncement, established and appointed
to be a Beggar. It is all the more interesting because, while he did
more than his duty a thousand times over, he was not at all like
a Beggar; nor at all likely to be a good Beggar. He had nothing
of the native vagabond about him, as had his great precursors;
he was not born with something of the wandering minstrel,
like St. Francis; or something of the tramping missionary,
like St. Dominic. But he insisted upon putting himself under
military orders, to do these things at the will of another,
if required. He may be compared with some of the more magnanimous
aristocrats who have enrolled themselves in revolutionary armies;
or some of the best of the poets and scholars who volunteered
as private soldiers in the Great War. Something in the courage
and consistency of Dominic and Francis had challenged his deep
sense of justice; and while remaining a very reasonable person,
and even a diplomatic one, he never let anything shake the iron
immobility of this one decision of his youth; nor was he to be turned
from his tall and towering ambition to take the lowest place.

The first effect of his decision, as we have seen, was much more
stimulating and even startling. The General of the Dominicans, under whom
Thomas had enrolled himself, was probably well aware of the diplomatic
attempts to dislodge him and the worldly difficulties of resisting them.
His expedient was to take his young follower out of Italy altogether;
bidding him proceed with a few other friars to Paris. There was
something prophetic even about this first progress of the travelling
teacher of the nations; for Paris was indeed destined to be in
some sense the goal of his spiritual journey; since it was there
that he was to deliver both his great defence of the Friars and his
great defiance to the antagonists of Aristotle. But this his first
journey to Paris was destined to be broken off very short indeed.
The friars had reached a turn of the road by a wayside fountain,
a little way north of Rome, when they were overtaken by a wild
cavalcade of captors, who seized on Thomas like brigands,
but who were in fact only rather needlessly agitated brothers.
He had a large number of brothers: perhaps only two were here involved.
Indeed he was the seventh; and friends of Birth Control may lament
that this philosopher was needlessly added to the noble line
of ruffians who kidnapped him. It was an odd affair altogether.
There is something quaint and picturesque in the idea of kidnapping
a begging friar, who might in a sense be called a runaway abbot.
There is a comic and tragic tangle in the motives and purposes of such
a trio of strange kinsmen. There is a sort of Christian cross-purposes
in the contrast between the feverish illusion of the importance
of things, always marking men who are called practical; and the much
more practical pertinacity of the man who is called theoretical.

Thus at least did those three strange brethren stagger or trail
along their tragic road, tied together, as it were, like criminal
and constable; only that the criminals were making the arrest.
So their figures are seen for an instant against the horizon of history;
brothers as sinister as any since Cain and Abel. For this queer outrage
in the great family of Aquino does really stand out symbolically,
as representing something that will forever make the Middle Ages a mystery
and a bewilderment; capable of sharply contrasted interpretations
like darkness and light. For in two of those men there raged,
we might say screamed, a savage pride of blood and blazonry of arms,
though they were princes of the most refined world of their time,
which would seem more suitable to a tribe dancing round a totem.
For the moment they had forgotten everything except the name of a family,
that is narrower than a tribe, and far narrower than a nation.
And the third figure of that trio, born of the same mother
and perhaps visibly one with the others in face or form,
had a conception of brotherhood broader than most modern democracy,
for it was not national but international; a faith in mercy and modesty
far deeper than any mere mildness of manners in the modern world;
and a drastic oath of poverty, which would now be counted quite
a mad exaggeration of the revolt against plutocracy and pride.
Out of the same Italian castle came two savages and one sage;
or one saint more pacific than most modern sages.
That is the double aspect confusing a hundred controversies.
That is what makes the riddle of the medieval age; that it was
not one age but two ages. We look into the moods of some men,
and it might be the Stone Age; we look into the minds of other men,
and they might be living in the Golden Age; in the most modern sort
of Utopia. There were always good men and bad men; but in this
time good men who were subtle lived with bad men who were simple.
They lived in the same family; they were brought up in the same nursery;
and they came out to struggle, as the brothers of Aquino struggled
by the wayside, when they dragged the new friar along the road
and shut him up in the castle on the hill.

When his relations tried to despoil him of his friar's frock he seems
to have laid about them in the fighting manner of his fathers,
and it would seem successfully, since this attempt was abandoned.
He accepted the imprisonment itself with his customary composure,
and probably did not mind very much whether he was left to philosophise
in a dungeon or in a cell. Indeed there is something in the way the whole
tale is told, which suggests that through a great part of that strange
abduction, he had been carried about like a lumbering stone statue.
Only one tale told of his captivity shows him merely in anger;
and that shows him angrier than he ever was before or after.
It struck the imagination of his own time for more important reasons;
but it has an interest that is psychological as well as moral.
For once in his life, for the first time and the last, Thomas of
Aquino was really hors de lui; riding a storm outside that tower
of intellect and contemplation in which he commonly lived.
And that was when his brothers introduced into his room some specially
gorgeous and painted courtesan, with the idea of surprising him
by a sudden temptation, or at least involving him in a scandal.
His anger was justified, even by less strict moral standards than his own;
for the meanness was even worse than the foulness of the expedient.
Even on the lowest grounds, he knew his brothers knew, and they
knew that he knew, that it was an insult to him as a gentleman
to suppose that he would break his pledge upon so base a provocation;
and he had behind him a far more terrible sensibility; all that huge
ambition of humility which was to him the voice of God out of heaven.
In this one flash alone we see that huge unwieldy figure in an attitude
of activity, or even animation; and he was very animated indeed.
He sprang from his seat and snatched a brand out of the fire,
and stood brandishing it like a flaming sword. The woman not
unnaturally shrieked and fled, which was all that he wanted;
but it is quaint to think of what she must have thought of that madman
of monstrous stature juggling with flames and apparently threatening
to burn down the house. All he did, however, was to stride after her
to the door and bang and bar it behind her; and then, with a sort
of impulse of violent ritual, he rammed the burning brand into the door,
blackening and blistering it with one big black sign of the cross.
Then he returned, and dropped it again into the fire; and sat down
on that seat of sedentary scholarship, that chair of philosophy,
that secret throne of contemplation, from which he never rose again.

--/--

III

THE ARISTOTELIAN REVOLUTION

Albert, the Swabian, rightly called the Great, was the founder
of modern science. He did more than any other man to prepare
that process, which has turned the alchemist into the chemist,
and the astrologer into the astronomer. It is odd that,
having been in his time, in this sense almost the first astronomer,
he now lingers in legend almost as the last astrologer.
Serious historians are abandoning the absurd notion that
the mediaeval Church persecuted all scientists as wizards.
It is very nearly the opposite of the truth. The world sometimes
persecuted them as wizards, and sometimes ran after them as wizards;
the sort of pursuing that is the reverse of persecuting.
The Church alone regarded them really and solely as scientists.
Many an enquiring cleric was charged with mere magic in
making his lenses and mirrors; he was charged by his rude
and rustic neighbours; and would probably have been charged
in exactly the same way if they had been Pagan neighbours
or Puritan neighbours or Seventh-Day Adventist neighbours.
But even then he stood a better chance when judged by
the Papacy, than if he had been merely lynched by the laity.
The Catholic Pontiff did not denounce Albertus Magnus as a magician.
It was the half-heathen tribes of the north who admired him
as a magician. It is the half-heathen tribes of the industrial
towns today, the readers of cheap dream-books, and quack pamphlets,
and newspaper prophets, who still admire him as an astrologer.
It is admitted that the range of his recorded knowledge,
of strictly material and mechanical facts, was amazing
in a man of his time. It is true that, in most other cases,
there was a certain limitation to the data of medieval science;
but this certainly had nothing to do with medieval religion.
For the data of Aristotle, and the great Greek civilisation,
were in many ways more limited still. But it is not really so much
a question of access to the facts, as of attitude to the facts.
Most of the Schoolmen, if informed by the only informants they
had that a unicorn has one horn or a salamander lives in the fire,
still used it more as an illustration of logic than an incident
of life. What they really said was, "If a Unicorn has one horn,
two unicorns have as many horns as one cow." And that is
not one inch the less a fact because the unicorn is a fable.
But with Albertus in medieval times, as with Aristotle
in ancient times, there did begin something like the idea
of emphasising the question: "But does the unicorn only have
one horn or the salamander a fire instead of a fireside?"
Doubtless when the social and geographical limits of medieval life
began to allow them to search the fire for salamanders or the desert
for unicorns, they had to modify many of their scientific ideas.
A fact which will expose them to the very proper scorn of a
generation of scientists which has just discovered that Newton
is nonsense, that space is limited, and that there is no such
thing as an atom.

This great German, known in his most famous period as a
professor in Paris, was previously for some time professor
at Cologne. In that beautiful Roman city, there gathered
round him in thousands the lovers of that extraordinary life;
the student life of the Middle Ages. They came together in great
groups called Nations; and the fact illustrates very well the
difference between medieval nationalism and modern nationalism.
For although there might any morning be a brawl between the Spanish
students and the Scottish students, or between the Flemish
and the French, and swords flash or stones fly on the most
purely patriotic principles, the fact remains that they had
all come to the same school to learn the same philosophy.
And though that might not prevent the starting of a quarrel,
it might have a great deal to do with the ending of it.
Before these motley groups of men from the ends of the earth,
the father of science unrolled his scroll of strange wisdom;
of sun and comet, of fish and bird. He was an Aristotelian
developing, as it were, the one experimental hint of Aristotle;
and in this he was entirely original. He cared less to be original
about the deeper matters of men and morals; about which he was
content to hand on a decent and Christianised Aristotelianism;
he was even in a sense ready to compromise upon the merely
metaphysical issue of the Nominalists and the Realists. He would
never have maintained alone the great war that was coming,
for a balanced and humanised Christianity; but when it came,
he was entirely on its side. He was called the Universal Doctor,
because of the range of his scientific studies; yet he was in
truth a specialist. The popular legend is never quite wrong;
if a man of science is a magician, he was a magician.
And the man of science has always been much more of a magician
than the priest; since he would "control the elements"
rather than submit to the Spirit who is more elementary
than the elements.

Among the students thronging into the lecture-rooms there was
one student, conspicuous by his tall and bulky figure, and completely
failing or refusing to be conspicuous for anything else.
He was so dumb in the debates that his fellows began to assume
an American significance in the word dumbness; for in that land
it is a synonym for dullness. It is clear that, before long,
even his imposing stature began to have only the ignominious
immensity of the big boy left behind in the lowest form.
He was called the Dumb Ox. He was the object, not merely
of mockery, but of pity. One good-natured student pitied
him so much as to try to help him with his lessons,
going over the elements of logic like an alphabet in a
horn-book. The dunce thanked him with pathetic politeness;
and the philanthropist went on swimmingly, till he came
to a passage about which he was himself a little doubtful;
about which, in point of fact, he was wrong. Whereupon the dunce,
with every appearance of embarrassment and disturbance,
pointed out a possible solution which happened to be right.
The benevolent student was left staring, as at a monster,
at this mysterious lump of ignorance and intelligence;
and strange whispers began to run round the schools.

A regular religious biographer of Thomas Aquinas (who, needless
to say, was the dunce in question) has said that by the end
of this interview "his love of truth overcame his humility";
which, properly understood, is precisely true. But it does not,
in the secondary psychological and social sense, describe all
the welter of elements that went on within that massive head.
All the relatively few anecdotes about Aquinas have a very
peculiar vividness if we visualise the type of man; and this
is an excellent example. Amid those elements was something
of the difficulty which the generalising intellect has in adapting
itself suddenly to a tiny detail of daily life; there was something
of the shyness of really well-bred people about showing off;
there was something even, perhaps, of that queer paralysis,
and temptation to prefer even misunderstandings to long explanations,
which led Sir James Barrie, in his amusing sketch, to allow
himself to be saddled with a Brother Henry he never possessed,
rather than exert himself to put in a word of warning.
These other elements doubtless worked with the very
extraordinary humility of this very extraordinary man;
but another element worked with his equally unquestionable
"love of truth" in bringing the misunderstanding to an end.
It is an element that must never be left out of the make-up
of St. Thomas. However dreamy or distracted or immersed
in theories he might be, he had any amount of Common Sense;
and by the time it came, not only to being taught, but to being
taught wrong, there was something in him that said sharply,
"Oh, this has got to stop!"

It seems probable that it was Albertus Magnus himself, the lecturer
and learned teacher of all these youths, who first suspected something of
the kind. He gave Thomas small jobs to do, of annotation or exposition;
he persuaded him to banish his bashfulness so as to take part in at
least one debate. He was a very shrewd old man and had studied
the habits of other animals besides the salamander and the unicorn.
He had studied many specimens of the most monstrous of all monstrosities;
that is called Man. He knew the signs and marks of the sort of man,
who is in an innocent way something of a monster among men. He was too
good a schoolmaster not to know that the dunce is not always a dunce.
He learned with amusement that this dunce had been nicknamed the Dumb Ox
by his school-fellows. All that is natural enough; but it does
not take away the savour of something rather strange and symbolic,
about the extraordinary emphasis with which he spoke at last.
For Aquinas was still generally known only as one obscure and obstinately
unresponsive pupil, among many more brilliant and promising pupils,
when the great Albert broke silence with his famous cry and prophecy;
"You call him a Dumb Ox; I tell you this Dumb Ox shall bellow so loud
that his bellowings will fill the world."

To Albertus Magnus, as to Aristotle or Augustine or any number
of other and older teachers, St. Thomas was always ready,
with the hearty sort of humility, to give thanks for all his thinking.
None the less, his own thinking was an advance on Albertus and
the other Aristotelians, just as it was an advance on Augustine
and the Augustinians. Albert had drawn attention to the direct
study of natural facts, if only through fables like the unicorn
and the salamander but the monster called Man awaited a much
more subtle and flexible vivi-section. The two men, however,
became close friends and their friendship counts for a great deal
in this central fight of the Middle Ages. For, as we shall see,
the rehabilitation of Aristotle was a revolution almost
as revolutionary as the exaltation of Dominic and Francis;
and St. Thomas was destined to play a striking part in both.

It will be realised that the Aquino family had ultimately
abandoned its avenging pursuit of its ugly duckling; who, as a
black friar, should perhaps be called its black sheep.
Of that escape some picturesque stories are told.
The black sheep generally profits at last by quarrels among
the white sheep of a family. They begin by quarrelling with him,
but they end by quarrelling with each other. There is a rather
confusing account concerning which members of his family came
over to his side, while he was still imprisoned in the tower.
But it is a fact that he was very fond of his sisters, and therefore
probably not a fable that it was they who engineered his escape.
According to the story, they rigged up a rope to the top of the tower,
attached to a big basket, and it must have been rather a big
basket if he was indeed lowered in this fashion from his prison,
and escaped into the world. Anyhow, he did escape by energy,
external or internal. But it was only an individual energy.
The world was still pursuing and persecuting the Friars, quite as
much as when they fled along the road to Rome. Thomas Aquinas
had the good fortune to gather under the shadow of the one great
outstanding Friar, whose respectability it was difficult to dispute,
the learned and orthodox Albertus; but even he and his were soon
troubled by the growing storm that threatened the new popular
movements in the Church. Albertus was summoned to Paris,
to receive the degree of a Doctor; but everyone knew that
every move in that game had the character of a challenge.
He made only the request, which probably looked like an
eccentric request, that he should take his Dumb Ox with him.
They set out, like ordinary Friars or religious vagabonds;
they slept in such monasteries as they could find; and finally
in the monastery of St. James in Paris, where Thomas met another
Friar who was also another friend.

Perhaps under the shadow of the storm that menaced
all Friars, Bonaventure, the Franciscan, grew into so great a
friendship with Thomas the Dominican, that their contemporaries
compared them to David and Jonathan. The point is of some interest;
because it would be quite easy to represent the Franciscan
and the Dominican as flatly contradicting each other.
The Franciscan may be represented as the Father of all the Mystics;
and the Mystics can be represented as men who maintain that the final
fruition or joy of the soul is rather a sensation than a thought.
The motto of the Mystics has always been, "Taste and see."
Now St. Thomas also began by saying, "Taste and see"; but he said
it of the first rudimentary impressions of the human animal.
It might well be maintained that the Franciscan puts Taste
last and the Dominican puts it first. It might be said that
the Thomist begins with something solid like the taste of an apple,
and afterwards deduces a divine life for the intellect;
while the Mystic exhausts the intellect first, and says finally
that the sense of God is something like the taste of an apple.
A common enemy might claim that St. Thomas begins with the taste
of fruit and St. Bonaventure ends with the taste of fruit.
But they are both right; if I may say so, it is a privilege of people
who contradict each other in their cosmos to be both right.
The Mystic is right in saying that the relation of God and Man
is essentially a love-story; the pattern and type of all
love-stories. The Dominican rationalist is equally right in
saying that the intellect is at home in the topmost heavens;
and that the appetite for truth may outlast and even devour
all the duller appetites of man.

At the moment Aquinas and Bonaventure were encouraged in the possibility
that they were both right; by the almost universal agreement that they
were both wrong. It was in any case a time of wild disturbance,
and, as is common in such times, those who were trying to put
things right were most vigorously accused of putting things wrong.
Nobody knew who would win in that welter; Islam, or the Manichees
of the Midi; or the two-faced and mocking Emperor; or the Crusades;
or the old Orders of Christendom. But some men had a very vivid
feeling that everything was breaking up; and that all the recent
experiments or excesses were part of the same social dissolution;
and there were two things that such men regarded as signs of ruin;
one was the awful apparition of Aristotle out of the East, a sort
of Greek god supported by Arabian worshippers; and the other was
the new freedom of the Friars. It was the opening of the monastery
and the scattering of the monks to wander over the world. The general
feeling that they wandered like sparks from a furnace hitherto contained;
the furnace of the abnormal love of God: the sense that they would
utterly unbalance the common people with the counsels of perfection;
that they would drift into being demagogues; all this finally
burst out in a famous book called The Perils of the Latter Times,
by a furious reactionary, William de St. Amour. It challenged
the French King and the Pope, so that they established an enquiry.
And Aquinas and Bonaventure, the two incongruous friends, with their
respectively topsy-turvy universes, went up to Rome together,
to defend the freedom of the Friars.

Thomas Aquinas defended the great vow of his youth, for freedom
and for the poor; and it was probably the topmost moment of his
generally triumphant career; for he turned back the whole backward
movement of his time. Responsible authorities have said that,
but for him, the whole great popular movement of the Friars might
have been destroyed. With this popular victory the shy and awkward
student finally becomes a historical character and a public man.
After that, he was identified with the Mendicant Orders. But while
St. Thomas may be said to have made his name in the defence of the
Mendicant Orders against the reactionaries, who took the same view
of them as his own family had taken, there is generally a difference
between a man making his name and a man really doing his work.
The work of Thomas Aquinas was yet to come; but less shrewd
observers than he could already see that it was coming.
Broadly speaking, the danger was the danger of the orthodox,
or those who too easily identify the old order with the orthodox,
forcing a final and conclusive condemnation of Aristotle. There had
already been rash and random condemnations to that effect,
issued here and there, and the pressure of the narrower Augustinians
upon the Pope and the principal judges became daily more pressing.
The peril had appeared, not unnaturally, because of the historical
and geographical accident of the Moslem proximity to the culture
of Byzantium. The Arabs had got hold of the Greek manuscripts
before the Latins who were the true heirs of the Greeks. And Moslems,
though not very orthodox Moslems, were turning Aristotle into a pantheist
philosophy still less acceptable to orthodox Christians. This second
controversy, however, requires more explanation than the first.
As is remarked on an introductory page, most modern people do know
that St. Francis at least was a liberator of large sympathies;
that, whatever their positive view of medievalism, the Friars
were in a relative sense a popular movement, pointing to greater
fraternity and freedom; and a very little further information
would inform them that this was every bit as true of the Dominican
as of the Franciscan Friars. Nobody now is particularly likely
to start up in defence of feudal abbots or fixed and stationary monks,
against such impudent innovators as St. Francis and St. Thomas. We may
therefore be allowed to summarise briefly the great debate
about the Friars, though it shook all Christendom in its day.
But the greater debate about Aristotle presents a greater difficulty;
because there are modern misconceptions about it which can only be
approached with a little more elaboration.

Perhaps there is really no such thing as a Revolution
recorded in history. What happened was always
a Counter-Revolution. Men were always rebelling against
the last rebels; or even repenting of the last rebellion.
This could be seen in the most casual contemporary fashions,
if the fashionable mind had not fallen into the habit of seeing
the very latest rebel as rebelling against all ages at once.
The Modern Girl with the lipstick and the cocktail is as much
a rebel against the Woman's Rights Woman of the '80's,
with her stiff stick-up collars and strict teetotalism,
as the latter was a rebel against the Early Victorian lady of the
languid waltz tunes and the album full of quotations from Byron;
or as the last, again, was a rebel against a Puritan mother to whom
the waltz was a wild orgy and Byron the Bolshevist of his age.
Trace even the Puritan mother back through history and she represents
a rebellion against the Cavalier laxity of the English Church,
which was at first a rebel against the Catholic civilisation,
which had been a rebel against the Pagan civilisation.
Nobody but a lunatic could pretend that these things were a progress;
for they obviously go first one way and then the other.
But whichever is right, one thing is certainly wrong; and that is
the modern habit of looking at them only from the modern end.
For that is only to see the end of the tale; they rebel against
they know not what, because it arose they know not when;
intent only on its ending, they are ignorant of its beginning;
and therefore of its very being. The difference between the smaller
cases and the larger, is that in the latter there is really so huge
a human upheaval that men start from it like men in a new world;
and that very novelty enables them to go on very long;
and generally to go on too long. It is because these things
start with a vigorous revolt that the intellectual impetus
lasts long enough to make them seem like a survival.
An excellent example of this is the real story of the revival
and the neglect of Aristotle. By the end of the medieval time,
Aristotelianism did eventually grow stale. Only a very fresh
and successful novelty ever gets quite so stale as that.

When the moderns, drawing the blackest curtain of obscurantism
that ever obscured history, decided that nothing mattered much
before the Renaissance and the Reformation, they instantly
began their modern career by falling into a big blunder.
It was the blunder about Platonism. They found, hanging about
the courts of the swaggering princes of the sixteenth century
(which was as far back in history as they were allowed to go)
certain anti-clerical artists and scholars who said they
were bored with Aristotle and were supposed to be secretly
indulging in Plato. The moderns, utterly ignorant of the whole
story of the medievals, instantly fell into the trap.
They assumed that Aristotle was some crabbed antiquity and tyranny
from the black back of the Dark Ages, and that Plato was an
entirely new Pagan pleasure never yet tasted by Christian men.
Father Knox has shown in what a startling state of innocence
is the mind of Mr. H. L. Mencken, for instance, upon this point.
In fact, of course, the story is exactly the other way round.
If anything, it was Platonism that was the old orthodoxy.
It was Aristotelianism that was the very modern revolution.
And the leader of that modern revolution was the man who is
the subject of this book.

The truth is that the historical Catholic Church began by
being Platonist; by being rather too Platonist. Platonism was
in that golden Greek air that was breathed by the first great
Greek theologians. The Christian Fathers were much more like
the Neo-Platonists than were the scholars of the Renaissance;
who were only Neo-Neo-Platonists. For Chrysostom or Basil it
was as ordinary and normal to think in terms of the Logos,
or the Wisdom which is the aim of philosophers, as it is to
any men of any religion today to talk about social problems
or progress or the economic crisis throughout the world.
St. Augustine followed a natural mental evolution when he was
a Platonist before he was a Manichean, and a Manichean before
he was a Christian. And it was exactly in that last association
that the first faint hint, of the danger of being too Platonist,
may be seen.

From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century, the Moderns have had
an almost monstrous love of the Ancients. In considering medieval life,
they could never regard the Christians as anything but the pupils
of the Pagans; of Plato in ideas, or Aristotle in reason and science.
It was not so. On some points, even from the most monotonously
modern standpoint, Catholicism was centuries ahead of Platonism
or Aristotelianism. We can see it still, for instance, in the tiresome
tenacity of Astrology. On that matter the philosophers were all
in favour of superstition; and the saints and all such superstitious
people were against superstition. But even the great saints found
it difficult to get disentangled from this superstition. Two points
were always put by those suspicious of the Aristotelianism of Aquinas;
and they sound to us now very quaint and comic, taken together.
One was the view that the stars are personal beings, governing our lives:
the other the great general theory that men have one mind between them;
a view obviously opposed to immortality; that is, to individuality.
Both linger among the Moderns: so strong is still the tyranny
of the Ancients. Astrology sprawls over the Sunday papers, and the
other doctrine has its hundredth form in what is called Communism:
or the Soul of the Hive.

For on one preliminary point, this position must not be misunderstood.
When we praise the practical value of the Aristotelian Revolution, and the
originality of Aquinas in leading it, we do not mean that the Scholastic
philosophers before him had not been philosophers, or had not been
highly philosophical, or had not been in touch with ancient philosophy.
In so far as there was ever a bad break in philosophical history,
it was not before St. Thomas, or at the beginning of medieval history;
it was after St. Thomas and at the beginning of modern history.
The great intellectual tradition that comes down to us from Pythagoras
and Plato was never interrupted or lost through such trifles as the sack
of Rome, the triumph of Attila or all the barbarian invasions of
the Dark Ages. It was only lost after the introduction of printing,
the discovery of America, the founding of the Royal Society and
all the enlightenment of the Renaissance and the modern world.
It was there, if anywhere, that there was lost or impatiently snapped
the long thin delicate thread that had descended from distant antiquity;
the thread of that unusual human hobby; the habit of thinking.
This is proved by the fact that the printed books of this later
period largely had to wait for the eighteenth century, or the end of
the seventeenth century, to find even the names of the new philosophers;
who were at the best a new kind of philosophers. But the decline
of the Empire, the Dark Ages and the early Middle Ages, though too
much tempted to neglect what was opposed to Platonic philosophy,
had never neglected philosophy. In that sense St. Thomas,
like most other very original men, has a long and clear pedigree.
He himself is constantly referring back to the authorities from
St. Augustine to St. Anselm, and from St. Anselm to St. Albert,
and even when he differs, he also defers.

A very learned Anglican once said to me, not perhaps without
a touch of tartness, "I can't understand why everybody talks as if
Thomas Aquinas were the beginning of the Scholastic philosophy.
I could understand their saying he was the end of it."
Whether or no the comment was meant to be tart, we may be sure
that the reply of St. Thomas would have been perfectly urbane.
And indeed it would be easy to answer with a certain placidity,
that in his Thomist language the end of a thing does not mean
its destruction, but its fulfilment. No Thomist will complain,
if Thomism is the end of our philosophy, in the sense in which God
is the end of our existence. For that does not mean that we cease
to exist, but that we become as perennial as the philosophia perennis.
Putting this claim on one side, however, it is important to
remember that my distinguished interlocutor was perfectly right,
in that there had been whole dynasties of doctrinal philosophers
before Aquinas, leading up to the day of the great revolt
of the Aristotelians. Nor was even that revolt a thing entirely
abrupt and unforeseen. An able writer in the Dublin Review
not long ago pointed out that in some respects the whole nature
of metaphysics had advanced a long way since Aristotle, by the time
it came to Aquinas. And that it is no disrespect to the primitive
and gigantic genius of the Stagirite to say that in some respects
he was really but a rude and rough founder of philosophy,
compared with some of the subsequent subtleties of medievalism;
that the Greek gave a few grand hints which the Scholastics developed
into the most delicate fine shades. This may be an overstatement,
but there is a truth in it. Anyhow, it is certain that even
in Aristotelian philosophy, let alone Platonic philosophy,
there was already a tradition of highly intelligent interpretation.
If that delicacy afterwards degenerated into hair-splitting, it
was none the less delicate hair-splitting; and work requiring
very scientific tools.

What made the Aristotelian Revolution really revolutionary was the fact
that it was really religious. It is the fact, so fundamental that I
thought it well to lay it down in the first few pages of this book;
that the revolt was largely a revolt of the most Christian elements
in Christendom. St. Thomas, every bit as much as St. Francis,
felt subconsciously that the hold of his people was slipping
on the solid Catholic doctrine and discipline, worn smooth by
more than a thousand years of routine; and that the Faith needed
to be shown under a new light and dealt with from another angle.
But he had no motive except the desire to make it popular
for the salvation of the people. It was true, broadly speaking,
that for some time past it had been too Platonist to be popular.
It needed something like the shrewd and homely touch of
Aristotle to turn it again into a religion of common sense.
Both the motive and the method are illustrated in the war of Aquinas
against the Augustinians.

First, it must be remembered that the Greek influence continued
to flow from the Greek Empire; or at least from the centre of the
Roman Empire which was in the Greek city of Byzantium, and no longer
in Rome. That influence was Byzantine in every good and bad sense;
like Byzantine art, it was severe and mathematical and a little terrible;
like Byzantine etiquette, it was Oriental and faintly decadent. We owe
to the learning of Mr. Christopher Dawson much enlightenment upon the way
in which Byzantium slowly stiffened into a sort of Asiatic theocracy,
more like that which served the Sacred Emperor in China. But even the
unlearned can see the difference, in the way in which Eastern Christianity
flattened everything, as it flattened the faces of the images into icons.
It became a thing of patterns rather than pictures; and it made definite
and destructive war upon statues. Thus we see, strangely enough,
that the East was the land of the Cross and the West was the land
of the Crucifix. The Greeks were being dehumanised by a radiant symbol,
while the Goths were being humanised by an instrument of torture.
Only the West made realistic pictures of the greatest of all the tales
out of the East. Hence the Greek element in Christian theology tended
more and more to be a sort of dried up Platonism; a thing of diagrams
and abstractions; to the last indeed noble abstractions, but not
sufficiently touched by that great thing that is by definition almost
the opposite of abstraction: Incarnation. Their Logos was the Word;
but not the Word made Flesh. In a thousand very subtle ways,
often escaping doctrinal definition, this spirit spread over the world
of Christendom from the place where the Sacred Emperor sat under his
golden mosaics; and the flat pavement of the Roman Empire was at last
a sort of smooth pathway for Mahomet. For Islam was the ultimate
fulfilment of the Iconoclasts. Long before that, however, there was
this tendency to make the Cross merely decorative like the Crescent;
to make it a pattern like the Greek key or the Wheel of Buddha. But there
is something passive about such a world of patterns, and the Greek Key
does not open any door, while the Wheel of Buddha always moves round
and never moves on.

Partly through these negative influences, partly through a necessary
and noble asceticism which sought to emulate the awful standard
of the martyrs, the earlier Christian ages had been excessively
anti-corporeal and too near the danger-line of Manichean mysticism.
But there was far less danger in the fact that the saints
macerated the body than in the fact that the sages neglected it.
Granted all the grandeur of Augustine's contribution to Christianity,
there was in a sense a more subtle danger in Augustine the Platonist
than even in Augustine the Manichee. There came from it a mood
which unconsciously committed the heresy of dividing the substance of
the Trinity. It thought of God too exclusively as a Spirit who purifies
or a Saviour who redeems; and too little as a Creator who creates.
That is why men like Aquinas thought it right to correct Plato by
an appeal to Aristotle; Aristotle who took things as he found them,
just as Aquinas accepted things as God created them. In all the work
of St. Thomas the world of positive creation is perpetually present.
Humanly speaking, it was he who saved the human element in
Christian theology, if he used for convenience certain elements
in heathen philosophy. Only, as has already been urged, the human
element is also the Christian one.

The panic upon the Aristotelian peril, that had passed across the high
places of the Church, was probably a dry wind from the desert.
It was really filled rather with fear of Mahomet than fear
of Aristotle. And this was ironic, because there was really much more
difficulty in reconciling Aristotle with Mahomet than in reconciling
him with Christ. Islam is essentially a simple creed for simple men;
and nobody can ever really turn pantheism into a simple creed.
It is at once too abstract and too complicated. There are
simple believers in a personal God; and there are atheists more
simple-minded than any believers in a personal God. But few can,
in mere simplicity, accept a godless universe as a god.
And while the Moslem, as compared with the Christian, had perhaps
a less human God, he had if possible a more personal God. The will
of Allah was very much of a will, and could not be turned into
a stream of tendency. On all that cosmic and abstract side
the Catholic was more accommodating than the Moslem--up to a point.
The Catholic could admit at least that Aristotle was right about
the impersonal elements of a personal God. Hence, we may say
broadly of the Moslem philosophers, that those who became
good philosophers became bad Moslems. It is not altogether
unnatural that many bishops and doctors feared that the Thomists
might become good philosophers and bad Christians. But there
were also many, of the strict school of Plato and Augustine,
who stoutly denied that they were even good philosophers.
Between those rather incongruous passions, the love of Plato
and the fear of Mahomet, there was a moment when the prospects
of any Aristotelian culture in Christendom looked very dark indeed.
Anathema after anathema was thundered from high places;
and under the shadow of the persecution, as so often happens,
it seemed for a moment that barely one or two figures stood alone
in the storm-swept area. They were both in the black and white
of the Dominicans; for Albertus and Aquinas stood firm.

In that sort of combat there is always confusion; and majorities
change into minorities and back again, as if by magic. It is always
difficult to date the turn of the tide, which seems to be a welter
of eddies; the very dates seeming to overlap and confuse the crisis.
But the change, from the moment when the two Dominicans stood alone
to the moment when the whole Church at last wheeled into line
with them, may perhaps be found at about the moment when they
were practically brought before a hostile but a not unjust judge.
Stephen Tempier, the Bishop of Paris, was apparently a rather
fine specimen of the old fanatical Churchman, who thought
that admiring Aristotle was a weakness likely to be followed by
adoring Apollo. He was also, by a piece of bad luck, one of the old
social conservatives, who had intensely resented the popular revolution
of the Preaching Friars. But he was an honest man; and Thomas Aquinas
never asked for anything but permission to address honest men.
All around him there were other Aristotelian revolutionaries
of a much more dubious sort. There was Siger, the sophist
from Brabant, who learned all his Aristotelianism from the Arabs;
and had an ingenious theory about how an Arabian agnostic could
also be a Christian. There were a thousand young men of the sort
that had shouted for Abelard; full of the youth of the thirteenth
century and drunken with the Greek wine of Stagira. Over against them,
lowering and implacable, was the old Puritan party of the Augustinians;
only too delighted to class the rationalistic Albert and Thomas
with equivocal Moslem meta-physicians.

It would seem that the triumph of Thomas was really a personal triumph.
He withdrew not a single one of his propositions; though it is said
that the reactionary Bishop did condemn some of them after his death.
On the whole, however, Aquinas convinced most of his critics that he was
quite as good a Catholic as they were. There was a sequel of squabbles
between the Religious Orders, following upon this controversial crisis.
But it is probably true to say that the fact, that a man like Aquinas
had managed even partially to satisfy a man like Tempier, was the end
of the essential quarrel. What was already familiar to the few
became familiar to the many; that an Aristotelian could really
be a Christian. Another fact assisted in the common conversion.
It rather curiously resembles the story of the translation of the Bible;
and the alleged Catholic suppression of the Bible. Behind the scenes,
where the Pope was much more tolerant than the Paris Bishop,
the friends of Aquinas had been hard at work producing a new
translation of Aristotle. It demonstrated that in many ways
the heretical translation had been a very heretical translation.
With the final consummation of this work, we may say that the great Greek
philosophy entered finally into the system of Christendom. The process
has been half humourously described as the Baptism of Aristotle.

We have all heard of the humility of the man of science;
of many who were very genuinely humble; and of some who were
very proud of their humility. It will be the somewhat too
recurrent burden of this brief study that Thomas Aquinas
really did have the humility of the man of science;
as a special variant of the humility of the saint.
It is true that he did not himself contribute anything concrete
in the experiment or detail of physical science; in this,
it may be said, he even lagged behind the last generation,
and was far less of an experimental scientist than his tutor
Albertus Magnus. But for all that, he was historically a great
friend to the freedom of science. The principles he laid down,
properly understood, are perhaps the best that can be produced
for protecting science from mere obscurantist persecution.
For instance, in the matter of the inspiration of Scripture,
he fixed first on the obvious fact, which was forgotten by four
furious centuries of sectarian battle, that the meaning
of Scripture is very far from self-evident and that we
must often interpret it in the light of other truths.
If a literal interpretation is really and flatly contradicted
by an obvious fact, why then we can only say that the
literal interpretation must be a false interpretation.
But the fact must really be an obvious fact. And unfortunately,
nineteenth century scientists were just as ready to jump to
the conclusion that any guess about nature was an obvious fact,
as were seventeenth-century sectarians to jump to the conclusion
that any guess about Scripture was the obvious explanation.
Thus, private theories about what the Bible ought to mean,
and premature theories about what the world ought to mean,
have met in loud and widely advertised controversy,
especially in the Victorian time; and this clumsy collision
of two very impatient forms of ignorance was known as the quarrel
of Science and Religion.

But St. Thomas had the scientific humility in this very vivid
and special sense; that he was ready to take the lowest place;
for the examination of the lowest things. He did not,
like a modern specialist, study the worm as if it were the world;
but he was willing to begin to study the reality of the world in the
reality of the worm. His Aristotelianism simply meant that the study
of the humblest fact will lead to the study of the highest truth.
That for him the process was logical and not biological, was concerned
with philosophy rather than science, does not alter the essential
idea that he believed in beginning at the bottom of the ladder.
But he also gave, by his view of Scripture and Science,
and other questions, a sort of charter for pioneers more purely
practical than himself. He practically said that if they could
really prove their practical discoveries, the traditional
interpretation of Scripture must give way before those discoveries.
He could hardly, as the common phrase goes, say fairer than that.
If the matter had been left to him, and men like him, there never
would have been any quarrel between Science and Religion. He did
his very best to map out two provinces for them, and to trace
a just frontier between them.

It is often cheerfully remarked that Christianity has failed,
by which is meant that it has never had that sweeping,
imperial and imposed supremacy, which has belonged to each of
the great revolutions, every one of which has subsequently failed.
There was never a moment when men could say that every man was
a Christian; as they might say for several months that every
man was a Royalist or a Republican or a Communist. But if sane
historians want to understand the sense in which the Christian
character has succeeded, they could not find a better case
than the massive moral pressure of a man like St. Thomas,
in support of the buried rationalism of the heathens, which had
as yet only been dug up for the amusement of the heretics.
It was, quite strictly and exactly, because a new kind
of man was conducting rational enquiry in a new kind of way,
that men forgot the curse that had fallen on the temples
of the dead demons and the palaces of the dead despots;
forgot even the new fury out of Arabia against which they
were fighting for their lives; because the man who was asking
them to return to sense, or to return to their senses,
was not a sophist but a saint. Aristotle had described
the magnanimous man, who is great and knows that he is great.
But Aristotle would never have recovered his own greatness,
but for the miracle that created the more magnanimous man;
who is great and knows that he is small.

There is a certain historical importance in what some would
call the heaviness of the style employed. It carries a curious
impression of candour, which really did have, I think,
a considerable effect upon contemporaries. The saint has sometimes
been called a sceptic. The truth is that he was very largely
tolerated as a sceptic because he was obviously a saint.
When he seemed to stand up as a stubborn Aristotelian,
hardly distinguishable from the Arabian heretics, I do seriously
believe that what protected him was very largely the prodigious
power of his simplicity and his obvious goodness and love
of truth. Those who went out against the haughty confidence
of the heretics were stopped and brought up all standing,
against a sort of huge humility which was like a mountain:
or perhaps like that immense valley that is the mould of a mountain.
Allowing for all medieval conventions, we can feel that with
the other innovators, this was not always so. The others,
from Abelard down to Siger of Brabant, have never quite lost,
in the long process of history, a faint air of showing off.
Nobody could feel for a moment that Thomas Aquinas was showing off.
The very dullness of diction, of which some complain,
was enormously convincing. He could have given wit as well as wisdom;
but he was so prodigiously in earnest that he gave his wisdom
without his wit.

After the hour of triumph came the moment of peril. It is always so with
alliances, and especially because Aquinas was fighting on two fronts.
His main business was to defend the Faith against the abuse of Aristotle;
and he boldly did it by supporting the use of Aristotle. He knew
perfectly well that armies of atheists and anarchists were roaring
applause in the background at his Aristotelian victory over all he held
most dear. Nevertheless, it was never the existence of atheists,
any more than Arabs or Aristotelian pagans, that disturbed the
extraordinary controversial composure of Thomas Aquinas. The real
peril that followed on the victory he had won for Aristotle was vividly
presented in the curious case of Siger of Brabant; and it is well
worth study, for anyone who would begin to comprehend the strange
history of Christendom. It is marked by one rather queer quality;
which has always been the unique note of the Faith, though it is not
noticed by its modern enemies, and rarely by its modern friends.
It is the fact symbolised