G. K. Chesterton, Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox

Sam Torode Books Arts, reprint, n.d.; 1933, 110 pgs.

Summary: A brief biography of Thomas Aquinas and overview of his philosophy, written by a Roman Catholic apologist and critic of modernity G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936).

In Chesterton’s view there are two enemies facing his readers: modernism and the “old Augustinian Puritanism” (1). Augustinianism as understood and taught by Luther “in a very real sense made the modern world” (109). Thus modernism and Augustinianism are collapsed into a single problem including the Manicheans (106), Buddhists, and Nihilists.  Both modernism and Protestantism/Plato can only be cured by returning to the common sense position of Thomas who baptized Aristotle. The problem with Augustine is that he essentially creates two realities: the one that can be seen and the one that is thought or believed. Thomas’ common sense grounds epistemology in the five senses and the intrinsic goodness of God’s creation including the goodness of the human intellect, will, and affections and then works towards God through logic thus unifying reality. Creation used correctly leads to salvation, because there is no absolute division between God and man. The only thing that keeps people from submitting to Thomas’ arguments is a lack of time to consider the arguments carefully. Religion is then necessitated by the lack of leisure for most people and the ignorance of the masses.

Benefits/Detriments: Chesterton paints with a very broad brush in a witty, paradoxical, and interesting way; what he writes that is true is very true; what he writes that is untrue is very much a lie. Chesterton’s review of Thomas’ early life and Thomas’ understanding of being is helpful, as is much of the critique of modernism. As far as I am able to tell from having read Thomas, Chesterton has almost exhaustively misunderstood the modifications that Thomas made to Aristotle and his use of Scripture, Augustine, and the philosophers. We can add to this Chesterton’s belief that Dante was Thomistic rather than a follower of the heretical Muslim Averroes (82).  And his criticism of Luther seems to be based on an overemphasis on Luther’s most hyperbolic rhetoric rather than his actual theology and practice.

Folded within Chesterton’s reading of Thomas is the claimed presupposition of the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet he goes beyond Thomas on underestimating the noetic affects of the Fall and perhaps has even tacitly rejected the historical doctrine of original sin. Further, common sense cannot teach transubstantiation, the levitation of ox-like theologians, and floating animated crucifixes (72). The inclusion of this material completely undermines the epistemological argument of Chesterton, because he has recreated the dualistic world that he claims Thomas unifies by common sense.

If Chesterton is half the thinker he appears to be, he’s not defending Thomas, the Catholic Church, or any form of orthodox belief, but he is giving a very robust and popular defense of his understanding of a modified Aristotle and offering the Roman Church as a resting place for “rational” moderns. If this reading is correct, it allows a rather more Aristotelian then Christian interpretation of the last lines of the last chapter directly speaking of Thomas:

This is, in a very rude outline, his philosophy; it is impossible in such an outline to describe his theology. Anyone writing so small a book about so big a man, must leave out something. Those who know him best will best understand why, after some considerable consideration, I have left out the only important thing (99).

The most terrible issue is that much of Chesterton’s understanding of the baptizing of Aristotle and even of Thomas’ work breaks with the inspired teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 1-3. And I have a sudden insight that Lewis wasn’t joking when he wrote that in hell the bookshops were “of the sort that sell The Works of Aristotle” (The Great Divorce, first paragraph).