The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas

Critical reception

Critically, The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas met with a mixed reception. In a review to The Journal of Religion, Joseph Wawrykow of the University of Notre Dame commended the editors for recruiting experts in the field of medieval philosophy, especially Thomism, to write the essays in the book. While praising the work in general, he was disappointed by it for not examining other "important theological issues", which include the Trinity, the Incarnation, and grace. With only two chapters devoted to Aquinas' theology, Wawrykow criticised the lack of attention given to this topic, which in every chapters only appears fragmentally. On the tenth chapter, he found that not only does "it fail to attend adequately to the biblical commentary as theological writings", which in his opinion is better than other forms of writing such as summae, it "appears too eager to impose on Thomas a modern, arguably reactionary agenda", including the use of historical criticism.

Williell R. Thomson of Speculum began his review by comparing it to other books of the Cambridge Companion series and added "the present volume anatomises its subject into ten more or less self-contained subsystems and devotes a chapter by an acknowledged authority to each". Thomson, however, questioned the reasons behind the authors who are all from North American institutions (except Jan A. Aertsen of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, who wrote the first chapter) and wondered if there have been a few European Thomists; he suggested that the answer should have been written in the introduction. Thomson criticised the book's elucidatory prose that are not "user-friendly", thus he felt that the book is suited more to specialists than beginners.

Writing for The Philosophical Quarterly, the American Catholic priest John I. Jenkins said that it presents successfully—as written in its introduction—that it will be giving deeper knowledge to the novices of Thomism. Jenkins broke down his compliment into two points: 1) The clarity, well-writtenness and wide scope of topic of the essays and 2) "that the collection exemplifie[d] may have been achieved unwittingly". The apparent difference of the views of each scholar, according to Jenkins, "can serve to indicate to the perspective reader just where some of the interesting and controversial questions in Thomistic scholarship lie". He concluded his review by writing that the book, not only a valuable guide to the school of thought, can help "the perceptive and diligent reader to some of the unresolved issues in a vibrant and engaging field of scholarship".

In a review to The Philosophical Review, Brian Davies said that the book has comprehensive yet concise essays that are written from critical perspectives and helpful to the beginners in comprehending Thomistic thoughts, praising those by John F. Wippel, Kretzmann, and Ralph McInerny in particular. He noted all the essays are centralised on what Aquinas said on the existence of God, but suggested to also add about his thoughts on Christian doctrines in the book's second edition. Davies, however, found it superior than Anthony Kenny's Aquinas: A Collection of Critical Essays (1969), which he found lacking an overview of Aquinas. In contrast, Felipe de Azevedo Ramos of the Lumen Veritatis called the 2011 Oxford Handbook of Aquinas better than The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas. François Beets of Revue internationale de philosophie described the work as "an annoying book". Beets wrote that the entirety of the book fails to examine how Aquinas' philosophy may be viewed in the 20th century.

E. P. Bos wrote a three-page positive review of the book to Vivarium; in the end of his review, he called it "a very interesting, clearly written introduction to Thomas for anybody who wishes to know more than e.g. histories of philosophy or philosophical dictionaries usually offer". Timothy McDermott of the New Blackfriars bemoaned that the companion focuses more on Aquinas only as a philosopher than theologian, and saw the final chapter, written by Stump, as not substantially contributing to the book. McDermott also observed of many spelling mistakes; "lead" for "led" in page 89, "goood" in page 198, "intenal" in page 207, "constitutent" and "not look" for "not to look" in page 211, and "surbordinated" in page 242.

A reviewer in the Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung commended The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas's essays, saying they are informative and clearly written while also free from apologetic tones. E. J. Ashworth of the Analytic Philosophy said the first and third chapters are "offer a useful corrective to any tendency to see Aquinas too exclusively in relation to Aristotle". Ashworth added that the last two essays "consider more strictly theological aspects of Aquinas's thought", and their presence in the book "raise the question of whether Aquinas can properly be considered a philosopher at all, and the majority of the papers take up this issue in one way or another, as does the editors' introduction". Ashworth also argued that most of Aquinas' writings are theological and wondered why most attention were given instead to his philosophy.

Publication history