St. Thomas Aquinas on Analogy ~ A Textual Analysis and Systematic Synthesis (1960)

158 Pages·1960·6.99 MB·English

by  George P. Klubertanz

St. Thomas Aquinas
on Analogy
A TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
AND SYSTEMATIC SYNTHESIS
George P. Klubertanz, S.J.
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY PRESS
JESUIT STUDIES
Chicago, 1960
. j
CONTENTS
© 1960
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY PRESS
Printed in the United States of America
Library 0/ Congress Catalog Card Number: 60-9602 Introduction 1
P-MAE-P-O-E
I. Backgrounds and Problems 5
II. Chronological Variations 20
III. Doctrinal Constants 35
IV. Problem Areas 77
v. Textual Conclusions 104
VI. Systematic Summary 111
Appendix I: Texts of St. Thomas on Analogy 157
Appendix II: Analytic Index to the Texts 295
Bibliography 303
IMPRIMI POTEST: Leo J. Burns, SJ.
Provincial of the Wisconsin Province Index 315
October 3, 1958
IMP RIM A T U R : ~ Alhert Cardinal Meyer
Archbishop·, of-Chicago
April 7, 1900 .
vii
INTRODUCTION
ThiS book is a textual study of St. Thomas' doctrine on
analogy. It joins a long line of similar studies, each claiming to
be an accurate account of SI. Thomas' thought on the problem.
Such perennial interest in. Thomistic analogy is not surprising,
for the problem is a central one for Thomistic metaphysics.
Except for a few drastically monistic systems of metaphys
ics, most philosophies admit that the objects which they know
are not all simply and entirely of a piece. They likewise main·
tain-unlike William James-that plurality as such is unintel
ligible. To make multiplicity intelligible, there seem to be only
a very few alternative methods. In Platonic and Neoplatonic
systems, nonbeing, or matter as opposed to being, functions to
introduce radical differentiation. Some philosophers speak of
appearance; others of evil; some, following Aristotle, find a
principle in form and potency; still others make use of the
notion of composition.
On the plane of language there are parallel solutions. The
primitive forms of logical positivism seemed infatuated with
the notion of a perfect language from which all ambiguity would
be excluded· and in which all errors become impossible-a mono
ism of meaning. Recently it has seemed to many analysts that
language is in fact filled with ambiguities and that they could
be removed only in very limited areas and at a cost of mak
ing language highly abstractionist. In other types of approach
1
Introduction 3
2 St. Thomas Aquinas on Analogy
many philosophers who are concerned with the meaning of our
appeal is made to an "unknown" (Locke, Spencer), or to
statements about God.
a "knowledge by equivocation" (Maimonides); to symbolic
On the strictly textual side the problem is not only difficult
knowledge, myth, metaphor, suprarational intuition, and even to
but tantalizing. St. Tbomas speaks of analogy in almost every
completely noncognitive factors such as sentiment, voluntary
one of his works, in a variety of contexts, yet he nowhere gives
or "animal" faith.
a thorough ex professo treatroent of the problem. Analogy is
In the thought of SI. Thomas Aquinas, also, the problem of
discussed only within the framework of a specific instance of
multiplicity is one of the reasons for analogy, and a significant
analogous likeness, only as a reply to a specific objection.' SI.
part of what he says apout analogy is devoted to predication. To
Thomas left no general treatise on analogy. If the importance
this extent, and in this sense, an investigation of analogy is of
of analogy in Thomistic metaphysics explains the large number
highly contemporary significance. It can be contended that
of previous textual studies, the scattered and partial texts ex·
analogy is more sophisticated and more supple than its corre·
plain in great part the deficiencies and conflicting interpretations
sponding doctrines in other philosopbies.
of these studies. There is no simple answer to the question: What
An area of special concern in Thomistic analogy is the prob.
is St. Thomas' doctrine of analogy? To give even a complicated
lem of our knowledge of God. For a relatively small number of
answer is difficult enough, though this is what this book attempts
philosophies there is a question whether the' existence of God
to do, at least in a preliminary fashion.
can even be known; that is, whether it is possible for man to
Chapter 1, after a sketch of traditional interpretations and
come to know anything beyond the range of his sense experi.
recent investigations of Thomistic analogy, outlines the areas
ence. But this is a question that can arise only under very nar·
which previous studies have not handled satisfactorily and indio
row and limiting suppositions.
cates a plan of attack which may yield more reliable results. A
The much more perennial problem-and, one is led to sus·
pect, the real one--is the status of our knowledge of God. Over major feature of this plan is a printed collection of the texts in
against the rationalists and gnostics of all ages there have been which St. Thomas discusses analogy; also included in this col·
the proponents of negative theology. And in all cases the reason lection are a number of texts which illustrate different types of
urged has been the transcendent perfection of God. Thus there analogy. These printed texts, together with a chronological list·
is a tension and a conflict: God is known to exist, He is known ing of St. Thomas' writings and an index of the most common
to be beyond created perfections, and apparently to know Him analogy terms, are given in their entirety in the Appendix. The
better is to realize more and more the inadequacy of our knowl· remaining chapters of the book are devoted to an analysis of
edge of Him. But then how can this be called a "knowledge"
of Him? How can we know that God is other than all created
perfections unless in some way we do know what God is? 1 "His texts on the notion of analogy are relatively few, and in each case they are
so restrained that we caDDot but wonder why the notion has taken on such an
Doctrinally, this is a difficult problem, and St. Thomas dealt importance in the eyes of his commentators" (Etienne Gilson, The Christian
with it repeatedly. It is at the center of some of his most pro· Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by L. K. Shook, C.S.B., p. 105
[New York: Random House, 1956]). Though the present investigation has
found discussions of analogy. Consequently a detailed study
uncovered a great number of texts, M. Gilson's comment on their restricted
of Thomistic analogy is of vital importance today for those nature remains true.
4 St. Thomas Aquinas on Analogy
these texts, and conclude with a doctrinal summary. Shortcom·
ings are inevitable in a work of this nature, but the texts given
in the Appendix should help subsequent research correct and
complete this study.'
This book owes its origin to the help of many friends. The CHAPTER I
Reverend William 1. Wade, S.J., director of the Department of
Philosophy at Saint Louis University, urged its composition and
provided assistance. A number of graduate students, Mr. Robert
Barr, S.J., Sister Thomas Marguerite Flanagan, C.S.J., Mr.
Francis Mininni, S.J., Mr. Denis David Savage, and Miss Rosa Backgrounds and Problems
T
Chua Tiampo, wrote their master's theses under the author's
direction on analogy in various works of St. Thomas. The great· his introductory chapter will review the traditional in·
est contribution was made by Mr. Patrick J. Burns, S.J., who terpretations of St. Thomas' doctrine of analogy, comment on
spent a year as a graduate assistant at Saint Louis University, recent contributions, and outline the areas in need of further
rechecking the previous studies, completing the tedious and investigation. Although no formal study of the sources of 51.
painstaking work of reading the Opera omnia of St. Thomas, Thomas' doctrine of analogy will be made, the reader is reo
finding and checking the secondary sources, and cooperating in ferred to the pioneering work of Hampus Lyttkens on the sub·
the analysis and classification of texts. Without his generous and ject.' Lyttkens traces the early mathematical and distributive
competent help this work would have been many more years in meanings of analogia in Plato and Aristotle, the new role it
the writing. assumed in N eoplatonic and Augustinian exemplarism, and the
pros hen equivocity of Aristotle, which reached St. Thomas
through Albert' and Averroes.' The most penetrating study of
analogous predication in Aristotle has been made by Joseph
Owens, C.Ss.R., although Lyttkens independently reached the
1 Hampus Lyttkens, The Analogy between God and the World: An Investigation
0/ Its Background and Interpretation 0/ Its Use by Thomas 0/ Aquino, pp.
15.163. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells, 1952.
, Ibid .• pp. 153.63.
3 Lyttkens has not traced the notion of analogy in detail through A verroes. The
resuJ,ts of a preliminary examination of Averroes as a source for St. Thomas
are not very promising, and the one interesting link found (see Chap. 3,
n. 10) may indicate a -reason. Lyttkens (p. 77) makes a few remarks on
Averroes' analogy doctrine. He also mentions Avicenna on the same page and
2 "The discussion of the meaning of St. Thomas's doctrine on analogy can last as discusses Pseudo-Dionysius, pp. 87-97. The Neoplatonists treated include
long as each side can discuss new texts, all authentically Thomistic, to justify Plotinus, ProeIus, Porphyry, Philo, Simplicius, Ammonius, and Albinus. No
its thesis" (ibid~ p. 107). tably absent are Boethius, Scotus Erigena, Avicebron, and the Victorines.
5
Backgrounds and Problems 7
6 St. Thomas Aquinas on Analogy
lationship that an analogous term has to the things of which it is
same conclusions.' The recent work of Robert J. Henle, S.J.,'
predicated (called analogates or inferiors), or the relationship
has superseded the earlier studies of Geiger' and Fabro' in the
among the analogates themselves. The analogon is the perfection
limited but crucial area of St. Thomas' handling of Plato and
which is common to all the analogates, in the sense just defined ..
of Plalonici texts, including those texts which develop the anal·
The analogy of attribution is that analogy in which the analogon }
ogy of participation.
is principally or perfectly in one analogate, called the primary
The names of three men stand out as commentators on St.
analogale, and only secondarily (by relation) in the other or
Thomas' doctrine of analogy: Cajetan, Sylvester of Ferrara, and
secondary analogates. The analogy of proportion is ih~t analogy
Suarez. Most modern literature on the subject can be traced
in which one analogate is directly related to another (k·: B).
back to one of these early commentators. Their respective posi·
The analogy of proportionality is that analogy in which there is
tions and the refinements of their modern followers have been
no direct relationship between the analogates themselves; there
adequately sketched by Lyttkens, but for purposes of conven·
is instead a relationship within each of the analogates, and these
ience a resume of that sketch will be given here.' A bibliography
relationships are sirnilar, though all the relata, four in number,
has been appended to this book in case the reader wishes to ex·
are different. Schematically, "A is analogous to B" means "A is
amine the literature himself.
composed of two elements, a and x; likewise, B is composed
In case some readers are not immediately familiar with the
of two components, band y; none of these four terms is similar
traditional terms and definitions used in Thomistic discussions
to any other, but the relationship of a to x is like that of b to y-
of analogy, a summary may refresh their memories. In the tra·
a : x :: b : y." Finally, an analogy is called "proper" if the pet·
ditional account terms (nomina) are of three kinds: uni~ocal
fection is intrinsic to each of the analogates in question, and
(having the same meaning in all of its uses, as horse) ; equivocal
"improper" or "extrinsic" if the perfection is present only in
(having different meanings that have no relation to each other,
one of the analogates.
as dog said of animal and star) ; and analogous (having several
meanings which are partly the same and partly different or
A. CAJETAN
which are related to one another, as healthy). Analogy is the reo
Most influential of all the commentators on St. Thomas has
been the fifteenth·century Thomist, Cardinal Ca jetan. Ca jetan
4 See Joseph Owens, C.Ss.R., The Doctrine 0/ Being in Aristotelian <Metaphysics: builds his interpretation of St. Thomas around an early text, in
pp. 49·63, 328·39 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 1952). the Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, where St.
Lyttkens discllsses Aristotle's pros hen equivocity on pp. 52·58. '
!i Robert J. Henle, 5.1., Saint Thomas and Platonism (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1956). Thomas speaks of analogy secundum intentionem et non secun·
Some of the valuable methodological conclusions of this study are summarized dum esse, secundum esse et non secundum intentionem, and
by the author in "Saint Thomas' Methodology in the Treatment of 'Positiones'
secundum intentionem et secundum esse.' To these three cate·
with Particular Reference to 'Positiones Platonicae,''' Gregorianum, XXXVI
(1955),391·409. gories Cajetan reduces all other divisions and distinctions of
6 L.-B, Geiger, D.P., La participation dans lo philosophie de S. Thomas d' Aquin.
Paris: Vrin, 1942.
1 C. ~abro, La .n.ozione. meta!is.ica di partecipazione secondo S. Tommaso d' Aquino, 9 I Sent., d. 19, q. 5, a. 2 ad 1. Cajetan's position is analyzed by Lyttkens, Analogy,
second edItwn. MIlan: VIta e Pensiero, 1950.
pp.205·15.
8 Lyttkens,. Analogy, pp ..2 0543.
8 51. Thomas Aquinas on Analogy Backgrounds and Problems 9
analogy found in the text of St. Thomas. Analogy secundum standing makes a thing present to the soul, so does sight to the
esse et non secundum intentionem is treated first. Cajetan calls living body. This type alone is analogy in the proper sense, since
this the analogy of inequality; a name and its meaning are only in this type does each of the analogates intrinsically pos
entirely the same, as body means the same whether we are sess the analogous perfection, which is proportionately similar
speaking of terrestrial or celestial bodies, but the essence in all analogates. The analogous concept involved in proportion
named is of unequal perfection in the two cases. Cajetan ality may be one which perfe.ctly represents the proportion in
claims that this is equally true of all gene:a with respect to one analogate and imperfectly represents the proportions be
their various species. He concludes by saymg that the anal· longing to all the others; it may al~o be one which imperfectly
\
, ogy of inequality is not properly analogy at all, and so rejects summarizes a number of different proportions but does not ex
it as a mode of analogy. The second of St. Thomas' classes, press the special proportions peculiar to each analogate. The
secundum intentionem et non secundum esse, Cajetan calls anal· former clear concept is simply many concepts and only propor
ogy of attribution, and illustrates with the use of the term healthy tionately one; the latter or confused (con-fused) concept is
applied to medicine, urine, and animal. This analogy taken for· simply one and proportionately many.
mally (that is, with regard to what is actually signified in this Cajetan's .followers have been numerous." Beginning with
way) is extrinsic; the analogous perfection (health) exists prop· the seventeenth-century Thomist, John of 51. Thomas, they are
erly only in one of the beings about which it is predicated, the all concerned to defend the main positions of Ca jetan against
primary analogate (the animal, for health). Secondary analo· opposing schools of interpretation. Most are conscious of cer
gates are denomi(lated from the numerically single perfection of tain tensions within their doctrine of analogy: (1) They insist
the primary analogate on the basis of the various relations that that, although the analogous perfection is found properly in
obtain between them and the primary analogate (cause, goal, only one of the analogates in the ailalogyof attribution, this
exemplar, sign, and sO forth; for example, medicine is healthy does not mean that the secondary analogate possesses no rele
inasmuch as it is the cause of the animal's health). The anal· vant intrinsic perfection at all. (2) They describe the analogous
ogous concept involved (health) contains distinctly the perfec. concept involved in the analogy of proportionality now as a
tion of the primary analogate, but only indistinctly the relations similar relation, now as a similar perfection which is the basis
of the secondary analogates to this perfection in the primary of a similar relationship. (3) They point out many "mixed"
I analogate. The expression "analogy of proportion" is not found analogies, in which the same ontological situation gives rise to
in Cajetan-naturally enough, because he treats proportion as two different types of analogous predication. (4) They maintain
, another word for analogy. All instances of it, however, he reo that the analogates in the analogy of proportionality are mu
duces to this analogy of attribution. The third of St. Thomas' tually independent, not all dependent upon a primary analogate
classes, secundum intentionem et secundum esse, Ca jetan calls as in the analogy of attribution, at least as far as the meaning of
analogy of proportionality, identifying it with the analogy dis. the analogous concept is concerned. Textually, Cajetan's fol-
cussed by St. Thomas in his Quaestiones disputatae de veritate,
second question, eleventh article. The example used by Cajetan
10 The most important of these are discussed by Lyttkens, Analogy, pp. 215-25. See
is that of vision as used of intellect and sight; for just as under-
the bibliography appended to this book for further information.
10 St. Thomas Aquinas on Analogy
Backgrounds and Problems 11
lowers have added very little to his work, although a number of
ship between the analogates in such a way that one can be re
special studies have been undertaken to prove that Cajetan's
ferred to the other as to a first analogate. Sylvester also attempts
interpretation is faithful to the text of St. Thomas." Unfortu
to reconcile St. Thomas' doctrine of an analogy unius ad alterum
nately, these have generally resulted in adding more and more
between creatures and their Creator (found both in the Summa
texts of St. Thomas to the prefabricated categories of Cajetan,
contra gentiles" and in the Summa theologiae") with his denial
regardless of how well they fit into those categories. None of
of an analogy of proportion in De veritate, q. 2, a. 11. Propor
Cajetan's followers, for example, has wondered about the tex
tion must be merely one type of analogy unius ad alterum, which
tual validity of his basic identification of the analogy secundum
is a general designation that includes proportionality as well as
intentionem et secundum esse with the analogy of proportion
proportion. Thus St. Thomas is rejecting only a direct propor
ality treated in De veritate, q. 2, a. 11. Nor has any of them ~d~­
tion between God and creatures in De veritate, q. 2, a. 11, not
quately defended Cajetan's reduction of numerous ThomIstIc
all analogy of one-to-another, and affirming only one type of
statements on analogy to a single category of attribution by ex
analogy of one· to-another (that is, proportionality) in the two
trinsic denomination.
Summae, not every type covered by this general term.
B. SYLVESTER OF FERRARA Sylvester's modern followers have added little to his inter
pretation." Textually, they have strengthened his position of a
Sylvester of Ferrara differs from Cajetan in his interpreta
first analogate in every analogy by collecting texts in which St.
tion of Thomistic analogy principally by insisting that every
Thomas discusses a relationship of priority and posteriority be
analogy includes a first analogate which determines the import
tween analogates." Yet, generally speaking, their textual posi
of the analogous concept; this is true· both in the analogy of
tion is weak. Neither Sylvester nor his followers have justified
attribution and in the analogy of proportionality." Sylvester
the reductionism which characterizes his approach to SI. Thomas'
takes this position on textual grounds: St. Thomas says in his
doctrine on analogy. His preoccupation with reconciling appar
Summa theologiae that in all analogical predication there is one
ently conflicting texis has prevented him from scrutinizing his
primary analogate to which the others refer." He attempts to
inadequate basic categories.
reconcile this statement with St. Thomas' insistence in De veri
tate, q. 2, a. 11 that the analogy of proportionality expresses no c. SUAREZ
direct relationship between the various analogates. He explains
Francis Suarez disagrees sharply with Cajetan's doctrine on
that St. Thomas is there merely rejecting the position that a
analogy. The analogy of attribution is not always extrinsic; the
name predicated absolutely of a creature can lead directly to
a knowledge of the Creator and be so predicated of Him; that
St. Thomas does not intend to exclude a proportional relation-
14. C.C., It cap. 34.
15 S.T., It q. 13, a. 5, c.
11 See the works of Feckes, Goergen, Penido, Phelan, and Ramirez listed in 16 These are discussed by Lyttkens, Analogy, pp. 228·33. The bibliography contains
the bibliography, further infonnation.
12 Sylvester of Ferrara's position is discussed by Lyttkens, Analogy, pp. 225·28. 11 For example, A. Van Leeuwen, 5.1., "L'analogie de l'etre. Genese et contenu du
13 S.T., It q. 13, a. 6, c. concept d'analogie," Revue neo-scolastique de philosophie, XXXIX (1936),
293·320.
12 St. Thomas Aquinas on Analogy Backgrounds and Problems 13
analogous perfection may exist properly in all the analogates, D. RECENT CONTRIBUTIONS
not only in the first analogate. This is the case in the analogy
Despite some preliminary work by Gilson" and Habbel,"
between Creator and creature, where an analogous concept des·
the only full·scale study" of Thomistic analogy which escapes
ignates abstracte et praecise the intrinsic perfection common to
the limitations of the traditional commentaries has been the doc·
both analogates." The analogy of proportionality, on the other
toral dissertation of Hampus Lyttkens, The Analogy between
hand, is not representative of the relation between God and the
God and the W orid: An Investigation of Its Background and
world. Proportionality for Suarez involves two proportions: one
Interpretation ;f Its Use by Thomas of Aquino." The first two
in which the analogous perfection exists perfectly, another in
sections of this work study the sources of St. Thomas' doctrine
which it exists only by reference or comparison. Proportionality
on analogy and review the traditional interpretations found in
is always to some degree figurative or metaphorical. Since crea·
the Thomistic and Suarezian commentators. These points have
tures exist in their own intrinsic perfection, this type of analogy
already been discussed. Lyttkens next indicates the basic types
cannot be used to describe their relation to God. Textually,
of analogy his independent examination of the Thomistic corpus
Suarez says that St. Thomas teaches an intrinsic analogy of at·
has revealed. Against this textual background he discusses the
tribution between creatures and their Creator, but no elaborate
limitations of the traditional commentaries and their basic cate·
textual proof is given for this position.
gories. Finally he goes on to give a fuller analysis of each of
Modern Suarezians have modified some of Suarez's posi·
the Thomistic analogies which he has discovered. This analytic
tions on analogy, but no significant te!'tual study has appeared
on the relationship between Suawzian and Thomistic analogy.
Father Descoqs, having rejected proportionality, tries to show
21 Etienne Gilson has published no complete textual discussion of Thomistic
that St. Thomas is not speaking of Cajetan's proportionality in analogy. He describes analogy as a similarity between cause and effect, citing
De veritate, q. 2, a. n." Santeler finds both intrinsic and ex· texts from the Summa theologiae and the Contra gentiles. He does not men
tion proportionality. See his The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas,
trinsic attribution in St. Thomas, as well as proportionality." pp. 105·10. His penetrating study of Cardinal Cajetan as a commentator on
No independent examination of the Thomistic corpus of analogy St. Thomas has made it easier to undertake a fresh examination of the Tho
mistic doctrine of analogy, apart from Cajetan's categories. See his "Cajetan
texts has yet been published by a Suarezian; even when reject.
et l'existence," Tiidschrift voor philosophie, XV (1953), 267-86.
ing Cajetan's interpretation, they discuss Thomistic analogy in 22 See J. Habbel, Die Analogie zwischen Gott und Welt nach ,Thomas von Aquin
the ligbt of Cajetan's categories. The preponderance of Caje. (Regensburg: Habbel, 1928). Like Gilson, Habbel stresses the causal analogy
between God and the world. He thinks that St. Thomas" discussion of propor
tan's influence in the systematic elaboration of a theory of anal· tionality in Ver., q. 2, a. 11, arose out of a desire to show that the essence of
ogy is more readily appreciated in those who opposed him. Even God cannot be determined from any creature. See Habbel, Analogie, pp. 55 fl.
Gilson and Habbel are discussed by Lyttkens, Analogy, pp. 241-42.
when they disagreed, they used his frame of reference.
23 Incidental discussjons of Thomistic analogy are to be found in several recent
, works, which partly or even entirely break free from Cajetanist categories;
see the works of Balthasar, Hayen, KrllPiec, Masiello, and Flanagan listed in
18 Suarez is discussed by Lyttkens, Analogy, pp. 23441. He agrees (p. 238, n. 9) the bibliography. But these works either do not deal with analogy as a main
with those critics who say that the "analogous" concept in Suarez's analogy topic or study only a limited number of texts. Landry rejected Cajetan's in
of intrinsic attribution is really univocal. terpretation, but without any full analysis of the texts of St. Thomas.
19 See ibid., pp. 238·40. 24 Lyttkens, as cited in Chap. 1, n. 1. This work is given an extended review by
"Ibid.. pp. 24041. L.-B. Geiger, O.P., in the Bulletin thomiste, IX (1955),416-23.
14 St. Thomas Aquiuas on Analogy Backgrounds and Problems 15
section of Lyttkens' work is of very high caliber: the textual CrItICism deprives the position of Cajetan and his followers of
references are numerous, pertinent, and accurate; the analysis its claim to a textual basis in St. Thomas.
is both cautious and nonreductionist. His conclusions may be 2. Although St. Thomas does discuss an analogy of attribu
summarized as follows. tion, he does not do so in the texts usually cited by the commen
1. There are three main types of analogy in St. Thomas, all tators. These texts and others like them deal with intrinsic
based on the likeness of effect to causes: (a) an analogy of attri analogies between cause and effect."
bution in which a concept is drawu from God and used to desig 3. St. Thomas' use of examples is not a sufficient criterion
nate creation extrinsically;" (b) an analogy in which the image for classifying texts, since he often cites the same example to
is designated from its archetype, because of an analogous per illustrate several different types of analogy."
fection which exists perfectly in God, imperfectly in creatures;" 4. There is no textual foundation for the claim of Cajetan's
and (c) an analogy in which the first Cause is designated from followers that an implied analogy of proportionality is opera
its effects, the perfections of which exist in a higher way in tive in those texts which explicitly describe a direct (and in
their cause.27 trinsic) analogy between God and the world."
2. An analogy of proportionality is found in St. Thomas, 5. Sylvester. of .Ferrara's interpretation of the analogy of
but it plays only a subordinate role in his metaphysics, where one-to-another as a general term including proportionality is in
it functions "as a logical aid in stating of God certain properties compatible with the context of Summa theologiae, I, q. 13, a. 6,
taken from creation. "28 and Summa contra gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 34."
Among the criticisms which L yttkens makes of previous in 6. The interpretation of the analogy of one-to·another given
terpretations of Thomistic analogy, the following seem most i.m by Suarez, in which the analogous perfection exists absolutely
portant from a textual viewpoint.
1. There is no textual foundatio.n for the identification of
the analogia secundum intentionem et secundum esse (In I Sen
text of 51. Thoma:;;: analogy of inequality {secundum esse sed non secundum
tentiarum, d. 19, q_ 5, a. 2 ad 1) with the analogy of pro intentionem}, of extrinsic attribution (secundum intentionem sed non secun·
dum esse), and of intrinsic attribution (secundum esse et secundum inten·
portionality discussed in the De veritate (q. 2, a. ll)!' This
tionem). He thinks that Ver., q. 2, a. II presents a fourth kind 'of analogy,
proportionality. He further identifies analogia unius vel multorum ad unum
with proportion _and 'analogia plurium ad plUTa with proportionality. The
division is neat but somewhat oversimplified.
25 Lyttkens, ;1nalogy .. pp. 245·66. 30 Lyttkens, Analogy, pp. 255, 285, 296·98.
26 Ibid .• pp. 266.83. 31 Ibid., pp. 296·97. The same conclusion is reached by William Meissner, 5J.,
27 Ibid., pp. 283.310. "Some Notes on a Figure in St. Thomas," New Scholasticism, XXXI (1957),
28 Ibid., pp. 474·75. 68·84. The article collects and analyzes St. Thomas' uses of the sanitas ex·
29/bid" pp. 270-71. An independent study by S. M. RamIrez, a.p., comes to the
ample in analogy contexts .
. same conclusion; see his article "En torna a un famaso texto de santo Tomas
32 Lyttkens, Analogy, pp. 298·307. The doctrine of "mixed" analogies regards one
sobre la analogia," Sapientia, VIII (1953), 166-92. Through an examimi.tion
ontological situation as' grounding two or more distinct analogies. Valid enough
of the texts themselves and their respective contexts, Ramirez finds that
in principle, the doctrine is inte:rpreted by Cajetan's followers so that all in
I Sent., d. 19, q. 5, a. 2 ad 1 is not parallel to Ver., q. 2, a. 11. He supports
trinsic analogies are automatically proportionalities by their definition, and
his conclusion by comparing the text from the Sentences with 5t. Albert's
all direct one·to·one analogies are necessaril y extrinsic.
treatment in the same place. Ramirez finds three types of analogy in this early
sSlbid., pp. 307·10.
,I