We have seen how the cloister life of the Middle Ages developed meditative habits of mind, which were followed by a spirit of inquiry on deep theological questions. We have now to consider a great intellectual movement, stimulated by the effort to bring philosophy to the aid of theology, and thus more effectually to battle with insidious and rising heresies. The most illustrious representative of this movement was Thomas of Aquino, generally called Thomas Aquinas. With him we associate the Scholastic Philosophy, which, though barren in the results at which it aimed, led to a remarkable intellectual activity, and hence, indirectly, to the emancipation of the mind. It furnished teachers who prepared the way for the great lights of the Reformation. Anselm had successfully battled with the rationalism of Roscelin, and also had furnished a new argument for the existence of God. He secured the triumph of Realism for a time and the apparent extinction of heresy. But a new impulse to thought was given, soon after his death, by a less profound but more popular and brilliant man, and, like him, a monk. This was the celebrated Peter Abélard, born in the year 1079, in Brittany, of noble parents, and a boy of remarkable precocity. He was a sort of knight-errant of philosophy, going from convent to convent and from school to school, disputing, while a mere youth, with learned teachers, wherever he could find them. Having vanquished the masters in the provincial schools, he turned his steps to Paris, at that time the intellectual centre of Europe. The university was not yet established, but the cathedral school of Notre Dame was presided over by William of Champeaux, who defended the Realism of Anselm...
Wanted to find out a bit more about Aquinas and his philosophy, motivated both by an interest in Catholic theology and some recent philosophy modules in an arts and humanities course. This book did the job, although I wouldn't say it did it superbly. It gives a perfectly good biography of Aquinas and then summarises his major works. You get a decent sense of what Aquinas was about, but I felt it goes into a little too much detail for a quick read, but not quite enough to help the reader who doesn't have a background in philosophy or theology get their head around a lot of the discussion. It might have been better to pick out fewer key themes and explain them a bit more than to skate over so much of Aquinas' work. After reading this, I picked up Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy and read the chapter on Aquinas in that, which felt as good as a summary, but is much shorter.