No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2024
Mr. Dudley Wright’s note on Charles Lamb and St. Thomas (Blackfriars, February, 1933) opens up an attractive question which has never been treated with any fullness—namely, how many of our eighteenth and early nineteenth century writers were familiar with the works of the Angelic Doctor.
In 1814 Hallam wrote as follows:
‘Perhaps I may have imagined the scholastics to be more forgotten than they really are. Within a short time I have met with four living English writers who have read parts of Thomas Aquinas: Mr. Turner, Mr. Berington, Mr. Coleridge, and the Edinburgh Reviewer (Macaulay). Still, I cannot bring myself to think that there are four more in this country who can say the same,’
1 Middle Ages. Vol. 3, Ch. ix, pt. ii.
2 Essays of Elia: The Two Races of Men.
3 Church and State.
4 Biographia Literaria. Vol. 1, ch. v. James Mackintosh, however, flatly contradicts this assertion. ‘In answer to a remark of Mr. Coleridge, I must add, that the manuscript of a part of Aquinas which I bought many years ago (on the faith of a bookseller's catalogue) as being written by Mr. Hume was not a copy of the Commentary on the Parva Naturalia, but of Aquinas's own Secunda Secuudue: and that, on examination, it proved not to be the handwriting of Mr. Hume, and to contain nothing written by him' (Ethical Philosophy, Note T).
5 See Curiosities of Literature, Quodlibets.
You have
Access