Francisco Suárez

[Justin_W]

I recently (a few days ago) learned of Francisco Suárez and his works. My discovery was semi-accidental and occurred while I was doing extensive web searches related to some theology research.

I was happily shocked when I discovered (after a few hours of admittedly cursory review) how clearly and cogently Suárez’s works seem to address some of the issues I was researching. I was shocked because I find it incomprehensible that he and his work seem to be practically unknown (e.g. w.r.t. name-recognition or internet mentions or citations or practically any other measure of recognition/unobscurity) in comparison with Augustine and Aquinas. And while I greatly respect and appreciate both of those men and their contributions to Catholic theology, I am left extremely puzzled over why and how Suárez’s works seem to be (at least in comparison) almost completely unrecognized.

After some additional research, I was able to discover (via wikipedia) that:

Suárez was regarded during his lifetime as being the greatest living philosopher and theologian, and given the nickname Doctor Eximius et Pius (“Exceptional and Pious Doctor”)

And yet, despite having spent some considerable time and effort researching catholic literature and theology, this is the first time I have ever heard of him (at least as far as I can recall).

Given that he apparently wrote and published 28 volumes (~21 million words) worth of material, and that he and it was apparently so highly regarded, I am bewildered as to how and why he and the work could remain so unrecognized in the present day.

The most plausible explanations that occurred to me are: Have his works or beliefs are considered to be flawed or heretical in some way? Or have they been superseded completely by some subsequent or better body of work? (And if so what is it?)

Otherwise, I am at a loss to explain why this prolific and apparently brilliant man and his works have become practically lost/ignored after only a few hundred years (and despite practically every other thing ever written by a human being in the entire history of the world becoming more well known in that same time period).

Can anyone please explain it to me so that I can allay my trepidation over whether studying (and citing) his work would somehow be a misuse of my time and effort?

 

[thinkandmull]

Its always neat to read lesser read writers

Where would one even get his writings?

 

[St_Francis]

Could it be that he is little known in English because the English-speaking natiions at that time were Protestant, and thus unlikely to interest themselves in his work?

And philosophy was undergoing a similar transition into “modern” (so-called Enlightenment) thinking?

Just musing about this…

 

[ccmnxc]

This issue with Suarez and most Scholastics outside of Aquinas (and, to an extent, Bonaventure), is that a massive portion of their work remains untranslated from Latin. There might be works about them and on their thought, but if you want their writings, one is going to be hard-pressed to find anything approaching their corpus in the English language. Plus, after the encyclical Aeterni Patris was published, the focus definitely shifted to Thomism, which slowed or stopped development on the thought of other Scholastics, including Suarez, at least in some circles.
This isn’t to belittle Thomism (I’m a Thomist), but it is very unfortunate to see that many of the works of the Scholastic writers like Suarez never really see the light of day among more than a very select group.

 

[dmar198]

I recently (a few days ago) learned of Francisco Suárez and his works. My discovery was semi-accidental and occurred while I was doing extensive web searches related to some theology research.

I found him when I was researching a topic and found that he had written on it. Then I was surprised to find that one of his most important works, Defense of the Catholic Faith, has recently been translated into English: philological.bham.ac.uk/suarez/contents.html

I was happily shocked when I discovered (after a few hours of admittedly cursory review) how clearly and cogently Suárez’s works seem to address some of the issues I was researching. I was shocked because I find it incomprehensible that he and his work seem to be practically unknown (e.g. w.r.t. name-recognition or internet mentions or citations or practically any other measure of recognition/unobscurity) in comparison with Augustine and Aquinas. And while I greatly respect and appreciate both of those men and their contributions to Catholic theology, I am left extremely puzzled over why and how Suárez’s works seem to be (at least in comparison) almost completely unrecognized.

After some additional research, I was able to discover (via wikipedia) that:

And yet, despite having spent some considerable time and effort researching catholic literature and theology, this is the first time I have ever heard of him (at least as far as I can recall).

Given that he apparently wrote and published 28 volumes (~21 million words) worth of material, and that he and it was apparently so highly regarded, I am bewildered as to how and why he and the work could remain so unrecognized in the present day.

The most plausible explanations that occurred to me are: Have his works or beliefs are considered to be flawed or heretical in some way? Or have they been superseded completely by some subsequent or better body of work? (And if so what is it?)

Otherwise, I am at a loss to explain why this prolific and apparently brilliant man and his works have become practically lost/ignored after only a few hundred years (and despite practically every other thing ever written by a human being in the entire history of the world becoming more well known in that same time period).

I don’t think he has been neglected. If you do a Google Book search for Suarez’s name plus the word “Catholic,” you can find lots of scholarly books and articles discussing him, especially concerning the history and development of doctrine. Using the “Search tools” on Google Book search, you can specify what time frame you want to look at, and discover that he has been discussed in this way for the last two centuries.

The thing is, he is mostly discussed by scholars, not laypeople, and I think that may be what gives you the impression that he is overlooked. But honestly, I think most laypeople hardly know anything more about St. Thomas than they do about Francisco Suarez. Sure, your average lay person know that St. Thomas was a scholar who wrote a big book about theology, but that’s about all they know, and it’s only two things. They may know zero things about Mr. Suarez, but two things is not that much greater than zero things.

The truth is, I think *all scholarly material is overlooked by your average lay person. That means they overlook St. Thomas And Mr. Suarez, because both were major contributors to scholarly fields. Most people aren’t thinkers, and so they aren’t going to be interested in important thinkers.

BTW I *Am interested in Mr. Suarez and I frequently refer to his translated book when I write articles and stuff on the history of dogma. I love his book and for a while he was my favorite philosopher.

 

[St_Francis]

This issue with Suarez and most Scholastics outside of Aquinas (and, to an extent, Bonaventure), is that a massive portion of their work remains untranslated from Latin. There might be works about them and on their thought, but if you want their writings, one is going to be hard-pressed to find anything approaching their corpus in the English language. Plus, after the encyclical Aeterni Patris was published, the focus definitely shifted to Thomism, which slowed or stopped development on the thought of other Scholastics, including Suarez, at least in some circles.
This isn’t to belittle Thomism (I’m a Thomist), but it is very unfortunate to see that many of the works of the Scholastic writers like Suarez never really see the light of day among more than a very select group.

I’m a little bit confused… also unsure how to put this correctly: I thought that the later Scholastics were working in a Thomistic way, and that was what made them Scholastics? But you seem to be saying that Thomism refers only to what St Thomas Aquinas did, not how he did it?

Thanks

 

[lmelahn]

I’m a little bit confused… also unsure how to put this correctly: I thought that the later Scholastics were working in a Thomistic way, and that was what made them Scholastics? But you seem to be saying that Thomism refers only to what St Thomas Aquinas did, not how he did it?

Thanks

No, believe it or not, until the Aeterni Patris of Leo XII (1879), Thomism was very much the minority view. The dominant currents were those of Duns Scotus and Suárez.

Scholasticism is a much broader phenomenon than St. Thomas Aquinas. Classical Scholasticism stretches from about the 10th Century to about the 14th; and then there have been several re-births (in Baroque Spain, and then again in late ninteenth and twentieth centuries).

It refers to the particular way of approaching problems, typical of the original European universities: by means of quaestiones, disputationes and similar proceedings.

Thomism itself is broader than St. Thomas Aquinas, because it can refer to all of those who claim to be disciples of Aquinas. However, Aquinas’ followers have for the most part followed the interpretation given by Thomas di Vio (also known as Cajetan) and the other Dominican interpretators of his time (John Capistran, Francesco Silvestri).

In reality, these Renaissance and Baroque interpreters are often very much at odds with their master, so in the twentieth century there was an effort to interpret Aquinas in a more faithful way (in authors such as E. Gilson and C. Fabro, among others).

There was also an effort by some Belgian, French and German philosophers (E.g., J. Maréchal, A. Marc, J.B. Lotz) to reconcile Aquinas with Modern philosophy (e.g., Kant, Hegel); they called their brand of Thomism “transcendental Thomism.” Frankly, their work was not very Thomist, except in name and terminology.

Suárez would be part of the Spanish scholastic revival, basically. The English-speaking world may not know his writings, but Suárez is an extremely important writer for two reasons:

(1) He was the textbook of choice for the Jesuits (being a Jesuit himself) in their seminary formation, until the mid twentieth century. Hence, Suárez’ ideas were present wherever the Jesuits evangelized.

(2) He is basically the “grandfather” of Modern philosophy. This occured becaue Suárez wrote the first complete, systematic treatise on metaphysics, really since Aristotle himself. As a result, his textbooks (the Disputationes) were used everywhere in Europe, even in Protestant countries (especially in Germany). René Descartes, arguably the father of Modern philosophy, almost certainly read his works; he certainly incorporated a lot of Suárez’ ideas into his own works. Read amost any Modern theodicy (defense of the existance of God)—by Leibniz or Kant (yes, Kant wrote a theodicy—he just thought that it could not be proved by speculative reason), and you will observe the very same structure that Suárez used in his demonstrations of God’s existence and attributes.

 

[Justin_W]

Where would one even get his writings?

This is where I started my reading of Suárez:
sydneypenner.ca/suarez.shtml
Suárez in English translation

 

[Justin_W]

This issue with Suarez and most Scholastics outside of Aquinas (and, to an extent, Bonaventure), is that a massive portion of their work remains untranslated from Latin. There might be works about them and on their thought, but if you want their writings, one is going to be hard-pressed to find anything approaching their corpus in the English language. Plus, after the encyclical Aeterni Patris was published, the focus definitely shifted to Thomism, which slowed or stopped development on the thought of other Scholastics, including Suarez, at least in some circles.
This isn’t to belittle Thomism (I’m a Thomist), but it is very unfortunate to see that many of the works of the Scholastic writers like Suarez never really see the light of day among more than a very select group.

Very helpful info. Thanks.

But it begs the question: What does it mean to “be a Thomist”? And what are the differences between Aquinas/Thomism and Scotusism and Suarezism? Wouldn’t one need to understand the differences/conflicts between their respective position before choosing one over the others?

 

[Justin_W]

The thing is, he is mostly discussed by scholars, not laypeople, and I think that may be what gives you the impression that he is overlooked.

I’m sure that’s a contributing factor, being as I am a lay person doing self-directed study.

But honestly, I think most laypeople hardly know anything more about St. Thomas than they do about Francisco Suarez. Sure, your average lay person know that St. Thomas was a scholar who wrote a big book about theology, but that’s about all they know, and it’s only two things. They may know zero things about Mr. Suarez, but two things is not that much greater than zero things.

There’s a degree of truth to that. However, I’ve encountered mention/reference to Aquinas in innumerable places in my research the last few years. I’ve read most of Aquinas’ ST. If I remember correctly, Aquinas’ work is cited in/by the CCC more often than any source except scripture itself. And as I recently read someone remark, many people (incorrectly) see the ST as an almost-addendum to the Bible itself. And a near-similar degree of popular exposure is given to Augustine. Such “popular” fame and recognition of merit is in stark contrast to the relative obscurity of Suárez and Scotus (and who knows what other obscure names I should be listing here but don’t yet know enough to do so).

The truth is, I think *all scholarly material is overlooked by your average lay person. That means they overlook St. Thomas And Mr. Suarez, because both were major contributors to scholarly fields. Most people aren’t thinkers, and so they aren’t going to be interested in important thinkers.

I half disagree with you. Aquinas’ and Augustine’s works are each very accessible to the English-reading world. They are available (often nicely formatted) in many e-formats (e.g. PDF, epub, mobi, txt) either for free and/or for $1-$2. E.g. From Amazon, CCEL, and other places. Basically, they are about as easily acquirable as the Bible and the CCC. And while the majority of lay people will never choose to avail themselves of these resources, the option is there and the choice is theirs.

In contrast, the works of Suárez, Scotus, et al. are neither accessible nor available nor popularized enough for lay people to even know there is a choice to be made (w.r.t. ignoring/reading those works). And the fact is, many people (at least in our modern culture) do equate fame with merit.

BTW I *Am interested in Mr. Suarez and I frequently refer to his translated book when I write articles and stuff on the history of dogma. I love his book and for a while he was my favorite philosopher.

Which book exactly?

 

[Justin_W]

No, believe it or not, until the Aeterni Patris of Leo XII (1879), Thomism was very much the minority view. The dominant currents were those of Duns Scotus and Suárez.

Scholasticism is a much broader phenomenon than St. Thomas Aquinas. Classical Scholasticism stretches from about the 10th Century to about the 14th; and then there have been several re-births (in Baroque Spain, and then again in late ninteenth and twentieth centuries).

Great info. Any suggestions of where to go to reliably learn/read more about the history of scholasticism?

Suárez would be part of the Spanish scholastic revival, basically. The English-speaking world may not know his writings, but Suárez is an extremely important writer for two reasons:

(1) He was the textbook of choice for the Jesuits (being a Jesuit himself) in their seminary formation, until the mid twentieth century.

And what happened then? What textbook(s) replaced his at that point?

(2) He is basically the “grandfather” of Modern philosophy. This occured becaue Suárez wrote the first complete, systematic treatise on metaphysics, really since Aristotle himself. As a result, his textbooks (the Disputationes) were used everywhere in Europe, even in Protestant countries (especially in Germany). René Descartes, arguably the father of Modern philosophy, almost certainly read his works; he certainly incorporated a lot of Suárez’ ideas into his own works. Read amost any Modern theodicy (defense of the existance of God)—by Leibniz or Kant (yes, Kant wrote a theodicy—he just thought that it could not be proved by speculative reason), and you will observe the very same structure that Suárez used in his demonstrations of God’s existence and attributes.

This somewhat strengthens my curiosity over exactly how and why Aquinas’ and Augustine’s works are so much more available (in English) than Suárez’. Given the recent cultural/academic shift away from God and theology in the English-speaking academic sphere, I would think that Suárez’ work would be of more interest (both popular and academic) for translation and study and discussion than Aquinas and Augustine.

 

[St_Francis]

No, believe it or not, until the Aeterni Patris of Leo XII (1879), Thomism was very much the minority view. The dominant currents were those of Duns Scotus and Suárez.

Scholasticism is a much broader phenomenon than St. Thomas Aquinas. Classical Scholasticism stretches from about the 10th Century to about the 14th; and then there have been several re-births (in Baroque Spain, and then again in late ninteenth and twentieth centuries).

It refers to the particular way of approaching problems, typical of the original European universities: by means of quaestiones, disputationes and similar proceedings.

Thomism itself is broader than St. Thomas Aquinas, because it can refer to all of those who claim to be disciples of Aquinas. However, Aquinas’ followers have for the most part followed the interpretation given by Thomas di Vio (also known as Cajetan) and the other Dominican interpretators of his time (John Capistran, Francesco Silvestri).

In reality, these Renaissance and Baroque interpreters are often very much at odds with their master, so in the twentieth century there was an effort to interpret Aquinas in a more faithful way (in authors such as E. Gilson and C. Fabro, among others).

There was also an effort by some Belgian, French and German philosophers (E.g., J. Maréchal, A. Marc, J.B. Lotz) to reconcile Aquinas with Modern philosophy (e.g., Kant, Hegel); they called their brand of Thomism “transcendental Thomism.” Frankly, their work was not very Thomist, except in name and terminology.

Suárez would be part of the Spanish scholastic revival, basically. The English-speaking world may not know his writings, but Suárez is an extremely important writer for two reasons:

(1) He was the textbook of choice for the Jesuits (being a Jesuit himself) in their seminary formation, until the mid twentieth century. Hence, Suárez’ ideas were present wherever the Jesuits evangelized.

(2) He is basically the “grandfather” of Modern philosophy. This occured becaue Suárez wrote the first complete, systematic treatise on metaphysics, really since Aristotle himself. As a result, his textbooks (the Disputationes) were used everywhere in Europe, even in Protestant countries (especially in Germany). René Descartes, arguably the father of Modern philosophy, almost certainly read his works; he certainly incorporated a lot of Suárez’ ideas into his own works. Read amost any Modern theodicy (defense of the existance of God)—by Leibniz or Kant (yes, Kant wrote a theodicy—he just thought that it could not be proved by speculative reason), and you will observe the very same structure that Suárez used in his demonstrations of God’s existence and attributes.

Thank you, Imelahn, for that very clear and comprehensive answer

I love learning about stuff like this, but I don’t really have the resources and am somewhat flakey so just pick up pieces here and there and so sometimes end up with erroneous ideas.

 

[lmelahn]

Great info. Any suggestions of where to go to reliably learn/read more about the history of scholasticism?

The best book that I have come across is Etienne Gilson’s History of Christian Philosophy. In fact, Gilson’s books in general are a great introduction for most of the authors you mention: Augustine, Aquinas, Scotus. He was a historian of philosophy, and specialized in Medieval philosophy.

You could also check out Frederick Copleston’s multi-volue History of Philosophy. Volume 2 and Volume 3 are what will most interest you.

And what happened then? What textbook(s) replaced his at that point?

I don’t think a single textbook replaced it, but the philosophy that became the most popular among Jesuits was so-called transcendental Thomism. So they probably would have used the Cahiers by Joseph Maréchal, or Johannes Baptist Lotz’ Traszendentale Ehrfahrung (Transcendental Experience).

This somewhat strengthens my curiosity over exactly how and why Aquinas’ and Augustine’s works are so much more available (in English) than Suárez’. Given the recent cultural/academic shift away from God and theology in the English-speaking academic sphere, I would think that Suárez’ work would be of more interest (both popular and academic) for translation and study and discussion than Aquinas and Augustine.

Well, I will be perfectly honest: if you have to choose between Aquinas and Augustine, on the one hand, and Suárez on the other, then it is much more important to study Aquinas and Augustine. Suárez is already (in my opinion) beginning the slide to Modernity. (I think that for reasons that are probably too technical for this forum. But basically, we see in Suárez a sort of rigidity is absent in the Medievals, certainly absent in Aquinas. That rigidity was passed on to the Moderns: Descartes, Leibniz, Wolff, Kant, and so on.)

But Suárez is important, since he is the “bridge” between Medieval and Modern philosophy.

As a practical matter, it helps that Aquinas was translated into English multiple times, and that Augustine has been the study of scholars for a millennium and a half. It also does not help that Suárez’ Disputationes are huge and (honestly) very boring and technical to read. (Aquinas is not exactly Virgil either, but his style is actually quite accessible once you get used to it.)

Apparently there are some partial English translations available, according to this site: ontology.co/biblio/suarez-editions.htm

 

[lmelahn]

Very helpful info. Thanks.

But it begs the question: What does it mean to “be a Thomist”? And what are the differences between Aquinas/Thomism and Scotusism and Suarezism? Wouldn’t one need to understand the differences/conflicts between their respective position before choosing one over the others?

The problem is that this is an enormous question.

To “be a Thomist,” in its most basic sense, is to claim to be a follower of St. Thomas Aquinas.

As far as differences among these authors, here are some starters:

(1) Augustine’s philosophy was largely influenced by Platonism. That means, among other things, that, like Plato, he thought that our knowledge is innate (that “coming to know something”*means, basically, bringing to mind what is already latent in our intellects). He is also influenced by the theory of Ideas, although (unlike Plato) he thinks that the ideas are in the mind of God, not subsistent in themselves.

(2) Both Aquinas and Scotus claim to be followers of Aristotle and also followers of Augustine.

Similarities between Aquinas and Scotus:

• Neither one was an innatist. Both would have accepted the idea that when we are created, we are sicut tabula rasa: our intellects are a clean slate.
• Both claim to accept Aristotle’s hylomorphism (theory of matter and form), although there are subtle differences in interpretation.
• Both use philosophy at the service of theology: their works are principally theological in character, but they make ample use of philosophy to aid them.

Some key differences:

• Scotus is a logician by training. He tends to place the emphasis on how we know things. Aquinas tends to put the emphasis on being, on how things are in reality.
• In theory of knowledge, whereas Aquinas feels that substances (meaning the things that we encounter every day: trees, animals, other man, and so on) are the easiest things for our intellects to understand. Scotus feels that what we know first and easiest is the properties and characteristics of things; the “substances” that contain them have to be deduced.
• Also in theory of knowledge, Aquinas (following Aristotle) holds that knowledge consists in the union—practically the identification—of the knower with the thing that he knows; for Aquinas, the proper object of knowledge is the thing known. For Scotus, knowledge consists in constructing a mental “model” or representation (with a greater or lesser fidelity) of the thing known; the proper object of knowledge is the mental representation.
• For Aquinas, the First Philosophy—metaphysics—studies real, actual being. For Scotus, the First Philosophy studies possible being and its properties.
• Scotus feels that, in order for theology to be meaningful, we must formulate a one-size-fits-all (univocal) notion of being. Aquinas holds that a one-size-fits-all notion of being is impossible—rather, being is an analogical notion. For Aquinas, we can still do meaningful theology, even with an analogical concept of being, through what is called apophatism: that is, by keeping in mind that we know much more what God is not than what He is.
• Scotus really likes to make distinctions: real distinctions, distinctions of reason, formal distinctions, modal distinctions…. Aquinas is much more modest in his use of distinctions.
• Aquinas makes heavy use of Neoplatonist philosophy, especially that of Pseudo-Denys the Areopagite: for example, he uses extensively of the notion of participation.
• Aquinas famously distinguishes between a substance’s being and its essence—and this composition is for Aquinas the fundamental mark of a creature. (In God, this composition is entirely absent.) Scotus does not make that distinction.

(3) Suárez is a lot closer to Scotus than to Aquinas, even though Suárez claims to be a follower of Aquinas. Like Aquinas (and unlike Scotus), he considers “being” an analogical term, but (more like Scotus) he considers God “another being among all beings.” (For Aquinas, God is not “a being like other beings” but completely transcendent. Hence, for Aquinas—but not Suárez—God can never the object of study of philosophy; He can only studied as the cause of created reality. To study God directly is the task of theology.)

Suárez puts a lot of emphasis on the efficient cause (to the detriment of the other three kinds of causes espoused by followers of Aristotle: formal, final, and material). In this, he anticipates Descartes, who goes a step further and practically eliminates the other three types of cause from his system. (I think this is why Suárez is baffled by the problem of the divine concursus—i.e., How is it possible for both God and creature to be the cause of the same action?)

There is more that could be said, but that is probably enough as a starter.

 

[lmelahn]

BTW I *Am interested in Mr. Suarez and I frequently refer to his translated book when I write articles and stuff on the history of dogma. I love his book and for a while he was my favorite philosopher.

Fr. Suárez. He was a Jesuit priest.

 

[lmelahn]

I don’t think a single textbook replaced it, but the philosophy that became the most popular among Jesuits was so-called transcendental Thomism. So they probably would have used the Cahiers by Joseph Maréchal, or Johannes Baptist Lotz’ Traszendentale Ehrfahrung (Transcendental Experience).

Sorry, that should be Transzendentale Ehrfahrung.

 

[lmelahn]

Aquinas famously distinguishes between a substance’s being and its essence—and this composition is for Aquinas the fundamental mark of a creature. (In God, this composition is entirely absent.) Scotus does not make that distinction.

Suárez also explicitly denied the real composition of being with essence.

(In my opinion, he was misreading Aquinas: for Aquinas, being—esse—and essence, in this context, are not, so to speak, full-fledged entities, but only the principles of full-fledged beings. They are the principles by which something exists; but they are not “things” in themselves. Suárez, in my opinion, construed Aquinas to mean that esse and essence were fully constituted “things.”)

 

[Justin_W]

The problem is that this is an enormous question.

To “be a Thomist,” in its most basic sense, is to claim to be a follower of St. Thomas Aquinas.

As far as differences among these authors, here are some starters:
…
There is more that could be said, but that is probably enough as a starter.

Many thanks lmelahn, for taking the time to educate me on this. That helps a great deal.