Dominican Theology at the Crossroads

James of Metz and Hervaeus Natalis, the primary heroes of this book, were leading figures of the Thomistic school at the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth century. Their conceptions of the nature of theology, as expounded in the Prologues to their Commentaries on Peter Lombard's Sentences, was and is of vital importance to Thomistic studies. Because of this, Dominican Theology at the Crossroads provides the critical editions of the original texts as well as commentary presenting...
More Description

James of Metz and Hervaeus Natalis, the primary heroes of this book, were leading figures of the Thomistic school at the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth century. Their conceptions of the nature of theology, as expounded in the Prologues to their Commentaries on Peter Lombard's Sentences, was and is of vital importance to Thomistic studies. Because of this, Dominican Theology at the Crossroads provides the critical editions of the original texts as well as commentary presenting their doctrinal contents in the historical context. A reader can find here all the extant versions of the Prologues together with a study of their mutual relations. The results are fascinating; these two Dominicans, usually perceived as opponents, are shown to be much more closely related than has been commonly thought-not only is it shown that Hervaeus' Prologue depends on that of James, the text demonstrates significant inherent similarities between the work of these two supposedly diametrically opposed men. Furthermore, the commentary demonstrates that both Prologues are aimed at combating the criticism of Thomas Aquinas formulated by the scholars flourishing at the Parisian University in the last quarter of the thirteenth century (principally by Giles of Rome, Henry of Ghent and Godfrey of Fontaines). James and Hervaeus do not merely repeat uncritically the conception of theology coined by the intellectual master of their order; on the contrary, they seek to elaborate a new interpretation of it-interpretation that, on the one hand, corrects some, perceived as untenable, elements of Aquinas' teaching and on the other, parries the attacks of the Parisian masters.