First, I don't really feel qualified to review this book. Chesterton seems to be having a one-way conversation with his peers. I am far from a peer of G.K. Chesterton. From a comprehension standpoint, I'd say somewhere between 15 and 19%. What I did manage to glean is magnificent. If I had the necessary years left, I'd begin directly on St. Thomas Aquinas but that is not the way I'll go. I recognize in life today a few of the things that the Saint urged to avoid but we didn't.
As for Chesterton's writing, it is clear even when the subject is difficult. Now, on to his books on Fr. Brown where I think my comprehension will be better. ( )

G.K. Chesterton's biography of Aquinas is clearly open to criticism as more hagiography than biography. Allowing for that and taking into consideration the brevity of the work and the minimal sketch of the details of Aquinas' life, it is nevertheless an outstanding book that distills the essence of Aquinas' philosophy, theology and his resulting place of prominence among the Fathers of the Church.

Chesterton relates the familiar stories about Aquinas's personal history, some of which I could recall from grammar school days under the tutelage of Domincian nuns. There is the story of his family's opposition to his ambitions to join the order of St. Dominic by kidnapping him, imprisoning him and even engaging a prostitute to tempt him and corrupt him. (This part of the story was omitted by the nuns.)

Chesterton elaborates on the controversy over incorporating the philosophy of Aristotle into his theology and causing the eclipse of Neo-Platonism with what Chesterton calls an Aristotelian revolution. He chronicles Aquinas' controversies with Siger of Brabant who drew a line between two separate spheres of truth, the province of science and the province of Christianity which are ultimately unreconcilable. To the extent that any claims are made for truth in Christianity today, this is pretty much the modern view of the validity of the respective claims of science and faith. ( )

Gilbert Keith Chesterton nebyl profesionálním filosofem. Je-li však pro každé naše spění za Filosofií, za moudrostí, nutné zacvičovat se v umění rozlišovat, lze s užitkem i s potěšením projít ateliérem tohoto mistra.
Když se na samém vrcholku své spisovatelské dráhy rozhodl napsat tuto knížku, spěchá nás na samém počátku úvodní poznámky ujistit, že „nechce být ničím více než populárním náčrtkem velké historické osobnosti, jež by měla být populárnější. Dosáhne svého účelu, přiměje-li lidi, kteří dosud znají svatého Tomáše Akvinského sotva podle jména, aby si o něm přečetli nějakou lepší knihu.“ Z přehnané skromnosti ho však s netajeným obdivem nad autentickou živostí tohoto „pouhého hrubého náčrtu postavy v krajině“ (jak své dílko sám nazývá v úvodní poznámce) ihned viní takoví prvotřídní odborní znalci jako Étienne Gilson či Jacques Maritain v Evropě nebo Anton Pegis v Americe ( )

DR-7

I-5