What do you think?
Rate this book
Gottes Dasein Und Wesen: I, 1 13
Despite its original purposethe instruction of "beginners" in theologythe Summa Theologiae is a work whose depth, subtlety, complexity, and concision hardly recommend it as a work for beginners unaided by a teacher or guide.
In this, the second volume of The Hackett Aquinas, Brian J. Shanley's crisp and accurate new translation of the first thirteen questions of the first part of the Summa (traditionally known as the Treatise on God) appears with a commentary that leads readers judiciously through this challenging yet extraordinarily influential treatise in the philosophy of religion. By explaining technical terms, expanding upon references, explicating presuppositions and implied premises, clarifying the logic of Aquinas' argumentation, and setting the treatise within a larger context, Shanley's commentary provides a first reading of the text that yet manages to be of great value to more advanced students as well.
A superb translation accompanied by expert guidance to the text, The Hackett Aquinas' Treatise on the Divine Nature is the new edition of choice for anyone wishing to approach this landmark treatise in English.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1982
1 person is currently reading
50 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Aquinas
2,546 books1,135 followersPhilosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar and theologian of Italy and the most influential thinker of the medieval period, combined doctrine of Aristotle and elements of Neoplatonism, a system that Plotinus and his successors developed and based on that of Plato, within a context of Christian thought; his works include the
Summa contra gentiles
(1259-1264) and the
Summa theologiae
or theologica (1266-1273).
Saint Albertus Magnus taught Saint Thomas Aquinas.
People ably note this priest, sometimes styled of Aquin or Aquino, as a scholastic. The Roman Catholic tradition honors him as a "doctor of the Church."
Aquinas lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that obtained for centuries. This crisis flared just as people founded universities. Thomas after early studies at Montecassino moved to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican order. At Naples too, Thomas first extended contact with the new learning. He joined the Dominican order and then went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, formed out the monastic schools on the left bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master, Thomas defended the mendicant orders and of greater historical importance countered both the interpretations of Averroës of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result, a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy, survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of work of Thomas for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource, now receiving increased recognition.
Saint Albertus Magnus taught Saint Thomas Aquinas.
People ably note this priest, sometimes styled of Aquin or Aquino, as a scholastic. The Roman Catholic tradition honors him as a "doctor of the Church."
Aquinas lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that obtained for centuries. This crisis flared just as people founded universities. Thomas after early studies at Montecassino moved to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican order. At Naples too, Thomas first extended contact with the new learning. He joined the Dominican order and then went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, formed out the monastic schools on the left bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master, Thomas defended the mendicant orders and of greater historical importance countered both the interpretations of Averroës of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result, a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy, survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of work of Thomas for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource, now receiving increased recognition.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
December 24, 2020
Aquinas is pretty smart.
Hanley's commentary is excellent, as well as his translation. 10/10 on both.
I could wax eloquent on how well the book quality is, though. Hackett is my now favorite publisher, beautiful typefont with Smyth Sewn binding. Sometimes I'd pick the book up just to pick it up, and feel it's virility radiating through my hands. Almost makes it worth the 70 dollars asking price. Almost.
Hanley's commentary is excellent, as well as his translation. 10/10 on both.
I could wax eloquent on how well the book quality is, though. Hackett is my now favorite publisher, beautiful typefont with Smyth Sewn binding. Sometimes I'd pick the book up just to pick it up, and feel it's virility radiating through my hands. Almost makes it worth the 70 dollars asking price. Almost.
November 5, 2025
The Treatise on Divine Nature makes up the first 13 Questions of Aquinas' Summa Theologica, and deals mainly with defining sacred teaching, and exploring God’s essence.
First of all, it is a work of theology. That may sound obvious given the author and title, but I had the impression that Aquinas was a thinker that attempted to ground theology in philosophy and reason in order to push it and explore religion in a metaphysical sense. That is true to an extent, but it is less so than what I hoped for. In the very first Article of the very first Question, Aquinas highlights that some truths are communicated to humans through divine revelation. Acting as an enabler of knowledge, where only a few learned would have the opportunity to grasp these truths, divine revelation comes to disseminate them to a broader range of people; a concept known as pedagogical necessity. In the very next article, Aquinas categorically classifies sacred teaching as a science, in the sense that its first principles are derived from a higher science, namely “the science that belongs to God and the blessed.”
Firstly, the concept of divine revelation itself is flawed, and to assume that it is the highest form of evidence and authority is to partake in the blindness of faith. I see “divine revelation” as nothing more than adapting and accepting social and cultural norms. When one is born in a circle where all believe in a higher power, what incentive is there to question these absolute truths propagated since this person’s birth? Knowledge of God’s existence is said to be a divine revelation because otherwise only a few would have the necessary learning to grasp his metaphysical necessity. But this is a façade to the deeper truth that it was socially alienating to believe otherwise, dangerous even, as the Spanish Inquisition proved two centuries later. To take scripture as divine revelation, and to impose this as a higher and purer truth is to discourage critical thinking and to socially control the people from their first breath. To simply accept something under a higher authority goes against what I believe in, and to assume that as a fundamental principle of theology instantly makes me wary of it, confirming in a sense the prejudices I have always had.
One may argue that epistemologically speaking, rejecting divine revelation is to self-limit one's potential knowledge to the finite scope of the human intellect. And in many ways, this is exactly true. We are epistemologically limited by human reasoning. Humanity’s whole development, from the first cave men to today’s multifaceted complexities, is confined to what we could build from our limited, albeit gradually increasing, knowledge. Although we face constraints, these limitations are an inherent part of being human. There is beauty in not knowing all, and not knowing most, even. But, as a species, not knowing the extent of our limitations makes us strive harder, push further, and defy what is now accepted as impossible. The struggle to surpass our limits is part of this beauty, not only in an epistemologically, but also as a means of finding meaning and satisfaction. I'm not saying Aquinas claimed we can know everything, far from it. Yet to suggest that the epistemological limit imposed by the rejection of divine revelation is disadvantageous goes against my views on a fundamental part of what it means to be the "rational animals" Aristotle so endearingly continuously used as an example.
I will comment on the structure of the Summa later, but a brief comment on the sed contra now is in order, since we are speaking of scripture and divine revelation. The sed contra is a section present in each article where Aquinas disagrees with the previous objections, stating his true position in the discussion. In medieval academic circles, this section was a common way to assert that the author’s true position was not heretical, adhering to an established precedence in scripture. In its essence, Scholastic dialectics had a strong appeal to authority, grounded in the sed contra. To take seriously a study that considers fallacious reasoning as the highest form of truth is inimical to my nature. As Aquinas perfectly illustrates my point:
Secondly, hearkening back to the first two articles I firstly objected to, despite his statement being logically correct, it still irks me to some degree that Aquinas also considers sacred teaching (theology) a science. This is based on his adoption of the Aristotelian definition of science: something that derives its first principles either from reason itself or from a higher science, just as the "science of music depends on principles known through arithmetic" [I.1.2]. Judging this framework by Popper’s contemporary notion of science, namely that which can be falsifiable, is unjust at best. However, my disagreement lies not in the use of Aristotle definition, but in the deflection done when saying that theology derives its first principles from God, which circularly returns to my previous treatment of divine revelation and scripture. It is a science because it takes from the higher originated, and forcibly “true” admittance of God’s revelations. To deflect a justification on God and consider the matter closed is my true friction in this case.
These are only two of the very first instances where I was infuriated with Aquinas. His treatment continues throughout 13 Questions and 139 Articles, mostly proving to be both boring, frustrating and different from what I expected this work to be. I expected a more rigorous treatment of the content, approaching something more like natural theology (philosophical treatment of religion). Even when this is the focus, as in the five ways, which attempt to prove the existence of God through a metaphysical and logical standpoint, the discussion feels shallow and over summarized. This brings us to my next point, the structure.
The Summa Theologiae is structuraly made of Questions and Articles. Questions deal with a broad theological or philosophical topic, and Articles address a specific issue within that Question. Articles are divided into a few sections: there are the Objections, which lists various arguments against the position Aquinas will ultimately defend; the Sed Contra, which I have already previously discussed, introduces an authoritative statement supporting Aquinas’s stance; the Respondeo functions as the corpus of the argument, where Aquinas presents his own reasoning and conclusion; and finally, the Replies address each of the previously raised objections individually.
My main issue with this organization is that there is not enough space to actually expand on any given topic. Each Article is, at most, 2 pages long, so no matter how condensed the author writes, his conclusions often feel lacking in the appropriate sequence of reasoning. We fall into the issue of shallowness once again, since is too short to amount to anything substantial. Additionally, the objections raised are either very compelling or entirely absurd. In the first case, the briefness of the discussion impedes the author to adequately address the compelling objection, which makes me think the objection is somewhat stronger than the main argumentation. In the second case, the objections are obviously meant as a straw man argument, to be easily knocked down by the already established conclusions. I can see why its called a Summa, but I expected a better treatment of the subject, something more akin to On Being and Essence.
However, as is often the case, under black skies there is always a silver lining. Many arguments within natural theology are actually very interesting. Take, for instance, the notion of Good and Evil [I.5]. It is understood not as positive act, but as a privation of the Good. But if it is defined as this absence, such that what is evil is evil insofar as it lacks, in a respect, a part of what it needs to be a full actualized being (a perfect example of his species), how can redemption be possible? How can people change? Is this lack of actualization a defect in the essence of that thing?
Since evil is not a positive movement, there is no need to eliminate it. Instead, a path to redemption is possible through a positive movement towards reclaiming the missing Good. Drawing a parallel to the Nicomachean Ethics, a person that has a vice still has the potential to participate in the corresponding virtue. Through repeated good actions, the habit of virtue is formed, filling the gap imposed by the privation.
This absence, then, is not a defect in essence. Since Evil and Good are matters concerning actuality of being, the essence is not affected by Evil. The essence of the human involves a being that has the capacity for reason and the orientation towards goodness, so an essentially evil human is not a human anymore, metaphysically speaking. Therefore, this redemption is possible because through the will we can strive towards the good that is missing, fulfilling the natural tendency to participate in the Good, which is ultimately represented by the figure of God.
Another interesting relationship we can establish through this discussion is between metaphysics and ethics. What exactly is the relationship between wrong and evil? Is wrong, as in morality, also a lack of the Good? In his ethical view, is the duality between right and wrong actually a participation in the Good and a lack of it? If someone does something wrong out of his own will, does he therefore lack the actuality we were speaking of? As of now, Aquinas has not provided a definitive answer. But, as we can see, there are fairly engaging discussions in the work, even if these are limited by the briefness of the Articles.
Furthermore, I read this work in the translation of Brian J. Shanley, and it was excellent. Perhaps because Aquinas explicitly tells the reader the work is an introduction for theology students, it is much more accessible than the denser, more information packed On Being and Essence. Nevertheless, Mr. Shanley’s translation was clear and easy to follow. I also read his commentary, which was equally well done. While it was twice as long as the main Treatise, it offered valuable insights and clarified points that the primary work, due to its brevity, did not fully develop. As such, I’d say the commentary is entirely worth reading.
To conclude, I’ve brought a quote that illustrates some of my discontentment with the first 13 Questions of the Summa. It reads as follows.
First of all, it is a work of theology. That may sound obvious given the author and title, but I had the impression that Aquinas was a thinker that attempted to ground theology in philosophy and reason in order to push it and explore religion in a metaphysical sense. That is true to an extent, but it is less so than what I hoped for. In the very first Article of the very first Question, Aquinas highlights that some truths are communicated to humans through divine revelation. Acting as an enabler of knowledge, where only a few learned would have the opportunity to grasp these truths, divine revelation comes to disseminate them to a broader range of people; a concept known as pedagogical necessity. In the very next article, Aquinas categorically classifies sacred teaching as a science, in the sense that its first principles are derived from a higher science, namely “the science that belongs to God and the blessed.”
Firstly, the concept of divine revelation itself is flawed, and to assume that it is the highest form of evidence and authority is to partake in the blindness of faith. I see “divine revelation” as nothing more than adapting and accepting social and cultural norms. When one is born in a circle where all believe in a higher power, what incentive is there to question these absolute truths propagated since this person’s birth? Knowledge of God’s existence is said to be a divine revelation because otherwise only a few would have the necessary learning to grasp his metaphysical necessity. But this is a façade to the deeper truth that it was socially alienating to believe otherwise, dangerous even, as the Spanish Inquisition proved two centuries later. To take scripture as divine revelation, and to impose this as a higher and purer truth is to discourage critical thinking and to socially control the people from their first breath. To simply accept something under a higher authority goes against what I believe in, and to assume that as a fundamental principle of theology instantly makes me wary of it, confirming in a sense the prejudices I have always had.
One may argue that epistemologically speaking, rejecting divine revelation is to self-limit one's potential knowledge to the finite scope of the human intellect. And in many ways, this is exactly true. We are epistemologically limited by human reasoning. Humanity’s whole development, from the first cave men to today’s multifaceted complexities, is confined to what we could build from our limited, albeit gradually increasing, knowledge. Although we face constraints, these limitations are an inherent part of being human. There is beauty in not knowing all, and not knowing most, even. But, as a species, not knowing the extent of our limitations makes us strive harder, push further, and defy what is now accepted as impossible. The struggle to surpass our limits is part of this beauty, not only in an epistemologically, but also as a means of finding meaning and satisfaction. I'm not saying Aquinas claimed we can know everything, far from it. Yet to suggest that the epistemological limit imposed by the rejection of divine revelation is disadvantageous goes against my views on a fundamental part of what it means to be the "rational animals" Aristotle so endearingly continuously used as an example.
I will comment on the structure of the Summa later, but a brief comment on the sed contra now is in order, since we are speaking of scripture and divine revelation. The sed contra is a section present in each article where Aquinas disagrees with the previous objections, stating his true position in the discussion. In medieval academic circles, this section was a common way to assert that the author’s true position was not heretical, adhering to an established precedence in scripture. In its essence, Scholastic dialectics had a strong appeal to authority, grounded in the sed contra. To take seriously a study that considers fallacious reasoning as the highest form of truth is inimical to my nature. As Aquinas perfectly illustrates my point:
To argue from authority is most appropriate in this teaching inasmuch as its principles are received through revelation, and thus it must be believed on the authority of those to whom the revelation was given. Nor does this detract from the dignity of this teaching, for although an argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest of all, nevertheless an argument from authority based on divine revelation is the most powertul of all. [I:1:8]
Secondly, hearkening back to the first two articles I firstly objected to, despite his statement being logically correct, it still irks me to some degree that Aquinas also considers sacred teaching (theology) a science. This is based on his adoption of the Aristotelian definition of science: something that derives its first principles either from reason itself or from a higher science, just as the "science of music depends on principles known through arithmetic" [I.1.2]. Judging this framework by Popper’s contemporary notion of science, namely that which can be falsifiable, is unjust at best. However, my disagreement lies not in the use of Aristotle definition, but in the deflection done when saying that theology derives its first principles from God, which circularly returns to my previous treatment of divine revelation and scripture. It is a science because it takes from the higher originated, and forcibly “true” admittance of God’s revelations. To deflect a justification on God and consider the matter closed is my true friction in this case.
These are only two of the very first instances where I was infuriated with Aquinas. His treatment continues throughout 13 Questions and 139 Articles, mostly proving to be both boring, frustrating and different from what I expected this work to be. I expected a more rigorous treatment of the content, approaching something more like natural theology (philosophical treatment of religion). Even when this is the focus, as in the five ways, which attempt to prove the existence of God through a metaphysical and logical standpoint, the discussion feels shallow and over summarized. This brings us to my next point, the structure.
The Summa Theologiae is structuraly made of Questions and Articles. Questions deal with a broad theological or philosophical topic, and Articles address a specific issue within that Question. Articles are divided into a few sections: there are the Objections, which lists various arguments against the position Aquinas will ultimately defend; the Sed Contra, which I have already previously discussed, introduces an authoritative statement supporting Aquinas’s stance; the Respondeo functions as the corpus of the argument, where Aquinas presents his own reasoning and conclusion; and finally, the Replies address each of the previously raised objections individually.
My main issue with this organization is that there is not enough space to actually expand on any given topic. Each Article is, at most, 2 pages long, so no matter how condensed the author writes, his conclusions often feel lacking in the appropriate sequence of reasoning. We fall into the issue of shallowness once again, since is too short to amount to anything substantial. Additionally, the objections raised are either very compelling or entirely absurd. In the first case, the briefness of the discussion impedes the author to adequately address the compelling objection, which makes me think the objection is somewhat stronger than the main argumentation. In the second case, the objections are obviously meant as a straw man argument, to be easily knocked down by the already established conclusions. I can see why its called a Summa, but I expected a better treatment of the subject, something more akin to On Being and Essence.
However, as is often the case, under black skies there is always a silver lining. Many arguments within natural theology are actually very interesting. Take, for instance, the notion of Good and Evil [I.5]. It is understood not as positive act, but as a privation of the Good. But if it is defined as this absence, such that what is evil is evil insofar as it lacks, in a respect, a part of what it needs to be a full actualized being (a perfect example of his species), how can redemption be possible? How can people change? Is this lack of actualization a defect in the essence of that thing?
Since evil is not a positive movement, there is no need to eliminate it. Instead, a path to redemption is possible through a positive movement towards reclaiming the missing Good. Drawing a parallel to the Nicomachean Ethics, a person that has a vice still has the potential to participate in the corresponding virtue. Through repeated good actions, the habit of virtue is formed, filling the gap imposed by the privation.
This absence, then, is not a defect in essence. Since Evil and Good are matters concerning actuality of being, the essence is not affected by Evil. The essence of the human involves a being that has the capacity for reason and the orientation towards goodness, so an essentially evil human is not a human anymore, metaphysically speaking. Therefore, this redemption is possible because through the will we can strive towards the good that is missing, fulfilling the natural tendency to participate in the Good, which is ultimately represented by the figure of God.
Another interesting relationship we can establish through this discussion is between metaphysics and ethics. What exactly is the relationship between wrong and evil? Is wrong, as in morality, also a lack of the Good? In his ethical view, is the duality between right and wrong actually a participation in the Good and a lack of it? If someone does something wrong out of his own will, does he therefore lack the actuality we were speaking of? As of now, Aquinas has not provided a definitive answer. But, as we can see, there are fairly engaging discussions in the work, even if these are limited by the briefness of the Articles.
Furthermore, I read this work in the translation of Brian J. Shanley, and it was excellent. Perhaps because Aquinas explicitly tells the reader the work is an introduction for theology students, it is much more accessible than the denser, more information packed On Being and Essence. Nevertheless, Mr. Shanley’s translation was clear and easy to follow. I also read his commentary, which was equally well done. While it was twice as long as the main Treatise, it offered valuable insights and clarified points that the primary work, due to its brevity, did not fully develop. As such, I’d say the commentary is entirely worth reading.
To conclude, I’ve brought a quote that illustrates some of my discontentment with the first 13 Questions of the Summa. It reads as follows.
For whatever is found in other sciences that is inconsistent with the truth of this science [sacred teaching] is to be condemned as utterly false. [I:1:6]
April 28, 2025
This close reading of Thomas’ first question of the Summa (concerning sacred teaching in terms of its character and range) was so incredibly helpful. Thomas distinguishes even ‘theologia’ from ‘sacra doctrina’ because he recognises that the ‘study of God’, so-called, can be studied within the frame of philosophy, that is according to reason, as opposed to revelation- the unique first principle in sacred teaching, which is derived from Scripture and its authoritative summation in the articles of the Creed, which itself is in the form of God’s self-disclosure. In other words, sacra doctrina - or in modern parlance, Christian theology instead of metaphysics or theology of other religions - studies God under the aspect of his divine revelation in Sacred Scripture, which Thomas is careful to distinguish qualitatively from the writings of saints and individual doctors of the church. This makes further sense of why Thomas’ articles on whether Scripture should use symbols and multiple senses to convey its meaning is included within this first question about the character of sacra doctrina: Christian Theology is concerned first and foremost with how to read and interpret her primary text and source of first principles- Sacred Scripture.
September 13, 2018
I find the Hackett Aquinas a very good series of Aquinas readers. They also have one on another set of Questions of the Summa titled On Human Nature. This one is on Questions 1-13, including many important themes such as the five ways for illustrating the existence of God. Personally I find discussions on divine infinity and human knowledge about God particularly interesting. One feature that compels me to choose this version is its detailed notes. I somehow feel, from reading only, that the annotator is an experienced and incredibly nice teacher who has taught Aquinas for many years. Overall a very nice reading experience.
February 15, 2024
Not a particularly beautiful text but the quality of the reasoning is, quite frankly, startling.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews