In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK REVIEWS 203 Saint Augustine's Early Theory of Man, A.D. 386-391. By Robert J. O'Connell, SJ. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1968. Pp. xxiii+301. $10) Saint Augustine's Confessions: The Odyssey of Soul. By Robert J. O'Connell, SJ. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1969. Pp. xv+200. $6.50) These two important studies of Augustine's early thought are complementary. The first offers interpretations of key themes in Augustinian psychology (the soul as divine, fallen and Christian) while the second investigates related topics in the Confessions. This autobiographical work marks the transition to a more mature period but psychology is still its focal point. O'Connell's basic contention is that the philosophy of Plotinus is most important in the background of Augustine's thought and that Plotinism is the key to the understanding of many typically Augustinian themes. This assumption (irrespective of its validity from the point of view of Augustine studies) makes O'ConneIl's volumes a significant contribution to the history of Hellen/stic and late classical philosophy. He also enlarges our knowledge of the influence of this type of pagan thought on Christian intellectualism. For centuries scholars have debated the meaning of Augustine's acknowledgment that he was strongly impressed by his reading of the books of the 'Tlaton/sts." The precise identity of these treatises is not initially clear. Augustine does not seem to have the dialogues of Plato in mind, for he had little or no direct acquaintance with them and could hardly have read them in the original Greek. Of recent years, Porphyry has been suggested (chiefly by Pierre Courcelle, Willy Theiler, and John O'Meara) as the Neoplatonic thinker with whom Augustine was most familiar. However, in his first book, O'Conneli adds support to the contention of another school of interpreters who maintain that Plotinus was the greatest philosophic figure in the background of Augustine. Previous investigators have shown close textual similarity between about ten treatises in the Enneads and various passages in Augustine. Sometimes the language and thought are so close that it is difficult to see how Augustine could have produced his works without some knowledge of Plotinus. O'Conneil is able to add five more parallel texts. He certainly strengthens the claim that Plotinus exerted the most influence on the philosophic aspects of Augustine's thought. Of course, Porphyry was Plotinus' pupil, and probably the editor of his Enneads, so the distinction between these two Neoplatonists is a fine one, in any case. The second book by O'Connell is structured according to the sequence of the thirteen books of the Confessions; hence it constitutes a running commentary on this great patristic work. Emphasized throughout its comments are the same Plotinian themes that appeared in the previous Augustinian writings. People interested in the philosophy (as contrasted with the religious thought) of Augustine will find this book the best interpretation of the Confessions that we have in English. It is a worthy companionto the recognized French commentaries by Courcelle and LeBlond. VESNON J. Boum~ St. Louis University The Domain of Logic According to Saint Thomas. By Robert W. Schmidt, S.J. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966. Pp. xvii+352) This important and exhaustive study of Thomas' logic does not deal with the technique of this discipline but with its nature. It is a meticulous analysis of the mind 204 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY of Thomas concerning the e/dos of what conditions any technical expos~ inspired by Aristotle's theory of the laws of thought. This analysis is entirely based upon the texts of the Aquinate, many of which are quoted in Latin, at length. I am grateful to the author for his objectivity in the interpretation and, chiefly, for having let Thomas speak for himself, without any reference to his great commentators, even John of Saint Thomas (1589-1644) or Suarez (1548-1617), two famous leaders of two schools often opposed in Thomistic exegesis, respectively. The author has divided his work into three parts and a conclusion. The first part deals with the classical problems concerning the discipline itself: is logic an art? Or is it a science? Where is it pl~tced...

pdf

Share