I am an admirer of Thomas Aquinas, even though I am not Roman Catholic. He is powerful enough to cross the denominational bridges, and that is quite a compliment! This book is the Angelic Doctors last written work. In fact, he died in the midst of writing the book, so it is incomplete, which is our loss. A mind like his comes once in a Millennium, so we are all worse off to not have more of his writings.This book was intended to be a literal "hand book," a one -volume summation of Aquinas rather bulky Summa Theologica. It follows a deceptively simple format of three parts: Faith, Hope, and Charity. At first blush, this seems to roughly correspond to II-II of the Summa. However, Aquinas restated his arguments for Gods existence, and covers in a nutshell the main points of the entire I-I and I-II of the Summa.
It is a rare thing to find someone who can sum up a complex idea, or a string of complex ideas and concepts, but "The Dumb Ox" characteristically pulls it off. I wish more public speakers and politicians could develop this talent, since we get off on so many intellectual rabbit trails, and miss the great Yellow Brick Road. He does have a point to what he says, and he does stick on topic. Hence, his enduring power.
The translation is an easy read, and nothing really spectacular jumps out pro or con. As is stated in the introduction, this translation was to be a crutch, and the true student is encouraged to go to the original Latin for any hair-splitting nuances and so forth. The standard numeration is followed, so we can easily compare the translations. I hate translators/publishers who play God and reinvent the wheel in these matters.
I feel that this book should be used in conjunction with Kreefts "Summa of the Summa." They are about the same size, but each book has its strengths and weaknesses. "The Shorter Summa" has the benefit of being Aquinas speaking for himself, and him telling you what he thinks is important, with the only disadvantage being that it is incomplete. The "Summa of the Summa" has the benefit of Kreefts commentary and illustrations, and is (mostly) a good summery of Thomism, but it is Kreefts-and I say this will an infinity of charity and respect for a great man-"spin" on Aquinas. So my advice is to split the difference and to get both books.
The only real objection I have is that the picture of Aquinas is rather unusual. He looks like one of the extra-terrestrial "Greys" that Art Bell talks about. Aquinas is a genius, and a human computer, but he isnt a Vulcan, and he never made a crop circle. G. K. Chesterton speaks of a portrait of Aquinas with piercing eyes. The only clue we have is the starburst design, but it would be nice for a Chesterton scholar to try and track down this portrait, and start using it. Or at least stick with the traditional Medieval sketch that graces the covers of most of the current Aquinas Anthologies.
