Francisco Suarez: The Man in History

by Jorge J. E. Gracia

Francisco Suarez was the most prominent figure of the silver age of scholasticism, aperiod which went roughly from 1525 to 1625. 1 He was born in Granada, Spain, on January 5, 1548, at the height of Spanish imperial power. 2 Under Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon, known as los Reyes Catolicos (the Catholic Kings), a large part of the Iberian peninsula had become unified (1479) and power had been consolidated after the final defeat ofthe Moors at Granada (1492). Also in 1492 Arnerica was discovered, a fact that opened up unheard of resources to the newly united kingdom. Subsequently, through marriages, alliances, and military campaigns, the Spanish crown established its rule over the rest of the peninsula and other parts of Europe, so that by the middle of the sixteenth century the European section of the Spanish empire included parts of the Netherlands and the Holy Roman Empire, the kingdom ofNaples, Sardinia, Sicily, and the Duchy of Milan, among others. In a matter of fifty years Spain had become the preeminent political and economic power in Europe. As a result, artists and intellectuals flocked to Madrid, stimulating the development of arts and letters. Indeed, the period that goes roughly from 1500 to 1650 is generally known as the Siglo de Oro of Spanish letters, because of the
There is wide disagreement as to how to refer to the scholasticism of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Carlo Giacon has proposed the term "second scholastic" in La seconda scolastica, 2 vols. (Milan: Fratelli Bocca, 1946). But this expression seems to suggest a break between the scholasticism of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and the one of the sixteenth and seventeenth, while in fact there is no such break. Scholasticism continued to develop uninterruptedly from its origin in the thirteenth century to the seventeenth century and beyond. Within that broad spectrum, however, two periods stand out, the golden age (ca. 1250-1350) and the almost equally extraordinary silver age. 2 For Suarez's life, see J. H. Fichter, Man of Spain: Francis Suarez (New York: Macmillan, 1940) andJ. de Scorraille, Francis Suarezde la CompagniedeJesus, 2 vols. (Paris: Lethiellieux, 1912-13).
1

259

260

AMERICAN CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY

abundance and extraordinary quality of the literature produced. Spain became an intellectual leader in Europe and the undisputed leader of the Counter-Reformation. The Spanish mystics of the time, Teresa of Avila, Juan de ia Cruz, and Fray Luis de Leon, are unrivaled anywhere. Antonio de Nebrija composed the first grammar of any Romance language in 1492. The music of Victoria, Cabezon, and other Spanish composers was played all over Europe. The theater flourished under the pens of Lope de Vega and Calderon de la Barca. The novel reached new heights through Cervantes. And Spanish painting achieved international acclaim with Ribera, Zurbaran, and Velazquez. Philosophy, of course, could not be left behind, and so we find a score of Iberian figures of high rank. Among the most celebrated are Juan Luis Vives (1492-1540), Francisco de Vitoria (1492/3-1546), Domingo de Soto (1494-1560), Alonso de Castro (1495-1558), Melchior Cano (15091560), Pedro Fonseca (1528-1599), Domingo Banez (1528-1604), Francisco Toletus (1532-1596), Luis de Molina (1535-1600), Juan de Mariana (1536-1624), Gabriel Vazquez (1549-1604), and Juan de Santo Tomas (1589-1644). The greatest of the philosophers, however, is Francisco Suarez. Indeed, his work surpasses in depth, originality, and comprehensiveness that of any other of these, and his influence, both in modern philosophy and in subsequent scholastic thought, has been substantial. Suarez decided early in life that he would pursue an ecclesiastical career. Accordingly, he went to Salamanca to study canon law. While engaged in his studies there, he requested admission into the Society of Jesus. At first he was refused admission for reasons ofhealth and what was perceived as a lack of proper intellectual capacity. Insistence paid off, however, and he was allowed to join the order in 1564. Mter completing his studies, he began a teaching career that would last for over fifty years, taking him to some of the most reknown institutions of his time: Segovia, Valladolid, Rome, Alcala, Salamanca, and Coimbra. Suarez died in Lisbon, at the age of seventy, on September 25, 1617. Suarez did not publish early in his life. His first work, De Incarnatione Verbi, appeared in 1590, when he was forty two years of age. 3 Mter
For information on Suarez's works see C. Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la Compagnie deJesus, 9 vols. (paris: A. Picard, 1890-1900); a ehronology appears in J. Iturrioz, Bibliogra{ia Suareciana, espeeial issue of Pensamiento 4 (1948): 606-8. Five disputations of the Disputationes metaphysicae have been translated into English: Disputation 5, trans. by Jorge J. E. Graeia, in Suarez on Individuation (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1982); Disputation 6, trans. by J. F. Ross, On Formal and Universal Unity (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1964); Disputation 7, trans. by Cyril Vollert, On the Various Kinds of Distinctions (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1947); Disputations 10 and 11, trans. by Jorge J. E. Graeia and Douglas Davis, in The Metaphysics of Good and Evil According to Suarez (Munieh and Vienna: Philosophia Verlag, 1989); and Disputation 31, trans. by Norman Wells, On the Essence of Finite Being as Such. On the Existence of That Essence and Their

SuAREz

261

this initial publication, however, a steady stream of works followed: De mysteriis vitae Christi (1592), De sacramentis I (1595), Disputationes metaphysicae (1597), Varia opuscula theologica (1599), De sacramentis 11 (1602), De censuris (1603), De Deo uno et trino (1606), De virtute et statu religionis land 11 (1608 and 1609), De legibus (1612), and Defensio {idei catholicae (1613). Several other works appeared posthurnously: De gratia land 111 (1619), De angelis (1620), De opera sex dierum, De anima (1621), and De fide, spe, et caritate (1621), De virtute et statu religionis 111 and N (1624 and 1625), De ultimo {ine (1628), De gratia 11 (1651), De vera intelligentia auxilii efficacis (1655), Opuscula sex inedita (1859), and Conselhos y pareceres (1948). Moreover, there are still numerous manuseripts awaiting editing and publication. Obviously, Suarez was a tremendously prolific author; his published works fill twenty-eight large volumes. A good number of Suarez's works were presented as commentaries on Thomas's Summa theologiae, a clear testimony to the importanee that Suarez and his contemporaries attached to the Angelie Doctor. In fact, however, many of these works are largely independent treatises for which Thomas's Summa is only a thematic occasion. Suarez's contributions are important in three areas in particular: philosophy, law, and theology. From a philosophical standpoint his most important works are: De anima, which contains much of his psychology, epistemology, and philosophy of mind; De gratia, which deals with issues of philosophical theology involving free will and determinism; and the monumental Disputationes metaphysicae. The last is undoubtedly one of the great works of Western philosophy. It is the first systematic and comprehensive treatise on metaphysics composed in the West that is not a commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. Furthermore, it summarizes and evaluates the metaphysical thought of fifteen hundred years of medieval and scholastic metaphysical speculation. Indeed, it is to this day the most complete and comprehensive exposition of scholastic and Aristotelian metaphysics. Its fifty-four disputations cover every metaphysical topic known during Suarez's time. De legibus is Suarez's most important work dealing with legal and political theory. In it he explores in detail the nature of law and of civil society. Suarez's views on internationallaw (ius gentium) make him one of its founders. Suarez's contributions in theology are contained in his numerous books on the subject. He touched upon almost every aspect of sacred doctrine, from the Trinity to questions pertaining to the spiritual life. This has made his theologieal writings a standard source of Catholic

Distinction (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1983). There is also same legal matter translated. See G. W. Williams and James Brown Scott, ed. and trans., Selections {rom Three Works (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1944).

262

AMERICAN CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY

theology. Moreover, his role in helping to shape the response of the Catholic Counter-Reformation to the rise of Protestantism, guarantees a prominent pIace for his ideas in history. Suarez's place in the history of philosophy is frequently disputed. Some authors place him firmly in the medieval tradition, claiming that he should be seen as perhaps the last world-class figure ofthat tradition before modern philosophy changes the philosophical direction of the West. Others see Suarez as providing the foundation for some of the views that were going to form the core of modern philosophy. Under the latter interpretation he is seen as aprecursor of modern philosophy, rather than as the term of a medieval process of development. There are bases for defending both of these interpretations of Suarez's place in the history ofphilosophy. Indeed, if one looks at Suarez carefully it becomes evident that he is both the last major medieval theologian and the first major modern philosopher. This can be perhaps best illustrated with reference to the stated intention and method of the

Disputationes metaphysicae.
With respect to the intention of the work, we need to look no further than the Preface (Ratio et Discursus Thtius Operis: Ad Lectorem) to see that Suarez is indeed a medieval scholastic. His purpose is the same as that expressed in the Anselmian saying: Fides quaerens intellectum. Suarez teIls us, first, that he deals with metaphysics precisely because his aim is theologieal, for the good theologian will set down the foundations of metaphysics before he goes on to theology. Accordingly, Suarez postponed his theological commentaries on Thomas until after he had finished the Disputationes in order to provide a proper foundation for theology, for "divine and supernatural theology require human and natural metaphysics. J4 Moreover, like Thomas and other medieval theologians before him, Suarez points out that he never loses sight of Christian doctrine while he philosophizes and, indeed, that he intends his philosophy to be both Christian and an instrument oftheology. This end is what guides not only the way he deals with the issues he discusses, but also the very opinions and views he presents, leading him to favor those that appear to him more useful for piety and revealed doctrine. 5 Finally, he closes the Preface by hoping that the work will lead to God's greater glory and be of use to the Catholic Church. 6
Franeiseo Suarez, Disputationes metaphysicae, ed. C. Berton, in Opera omnia, vol. 25 (Paris: Vives, 1861), no page numbers: "Quemadmodum fieri nequit ut quis Theologus perfeetus evadat, nisi firma prius metaphysieae jeeerit fundamenta, ita intellexi semper, operae pretium fuisse ut, antequam Theologiea seriberem Commentaria....In dies tarnen luee elarius intuebar, quam illa divina ae supernaturalis Theologia hane humanam et naturalem desideraret ae requireret...." I Ibid.: "philosophiam debere ehristianam esse, ae divinae Theologiae Iministram. Quem mihi seopum praefixi, non solum in quaestionibus Ilpertraetandis, sed multo magis in sententiis, seu opinionibus-seligendis,-in-ea~ __ I -------- --------- - -4

SUAREZ

263

From this it appears quite conclusively that Suarez's aim in the

Disputationes metaphysicae is theological rather than philosophieal,

and that he fits squarely within the medieval scholastic view in which philosophy is seen as an instrument of theology. However, in the very Preface to which reference has been made there are three indications of a different attitude at playas weIl. The first indication is that Suarez speaks of giving back to metaphysics the place and position that rightly belongs to it, and he understands that place and position to be separate from and anterior to theology. 7 The second is Suarez's statement that his role as author of the Disputationes is not that of the theologian, but of the philosopher. 8 And, the third is that he apologizes for the occasional digressions into theological matters found in the work, even though he does not discuss theological issues in depth, since that would certainly be out of bounds of the subject matter of the book. 9 Indeed, even a superficial perusal of the Disputationes reveals that, when theological topics come up, Suarez generally points out to the reader that they do not pertain to the subject matter of the book and should be discussed or are in fact discussed elsewhere. All this points to Suarez's very clear and rigorous idea of the distinction between metaphysics and theology and of his roles as philosopher and theologian. The fact that he calls himself a philosopher, and the fact that he apologizes for dealing with theological matters in a work of philosophy should be sufficient to make the point. No great medieval scholastic called himself a philosopher, and even though some of them distinguished between theology and philosophy, none of them would have apologized for the introduction of theological matter in a philosophical context. Indeed, it was standard for medieval authors to use both faith and reason to argue for their views, whether philosophical or theological. But that procedure is abandoned in Suarez's Disputationes. Occasionally he does bring up a theological point, as noted, but in such cases, as he teIls us in the Preface, the aim is to show the reader how to apply metaphysical principles to theology rather than to use theology to prove philosophy. The sense one gets in reading the Disputationes is that one is reading a metaphysical rather than a theological work. This metaphysical emphasis both sets Suarez apart from his medieval predecessors and situates hirn at the beginning of the modern tradition.

propendens, quae pietati ae doetrinae revelatae subservire magis viderentur...." Ibid.: UUtinam utraque, et eaetera, quae molimur, in magnam Dei Optimi Maximi gloriam, et Eeelesiae Catholieae utilitatem eedant." 7 Ibid.: "quo huie doetrinae metaphysieae suum quasi loeum ae sedem darern, vel potius restituerem." 8 Ibid.: "Ita vero in hoc opere philosophum ago...." 9 Ibid.: "philosophieo eursu nonnunquam intermisso, ad quaedam Theologiea diverto, non tam ut iBis examinandis aut accurate explieandis immorer (quod esset abs re de qua nune ago)...."
6

264

AMERICAN CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY

Another point that sets Suarez apart from the medieval tradition is the very structure and procedure he followed in the Disputationes. The Disputationes does not adopt any of the standard medieval seholastie literary genres used in works of metaphysics: the commentary or the quaestio. Medieval authors generally presented their metaphysical views in eommentaries on Aristotle. Occasionally, short didactic or polemical tracts (opuscula) such as Thomas's De ente et essentia or De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas were also composed. But no systematic and comprehensive metaphysieal treatises were produced. Suarez, however, adopted precisely this format. Nor did Suarez follow the common custom of structuring works in terms of quaestiones reflecting current controversies and polemics. Rather, Suarez implemented a logieal procedure in which n1atters are discussed according to their relation to overall topics and subtopics. This arrangement, therefore, separates Suarez from his medieval antecedents and ties hirn to a subsequent tradition that characterizes modern philosophy. In short, Suarez cannot be considered exclusively a medieval seholastic or a modern thinker. He has to be seen in context as a transitional figure. 10 His overall aims and views go back to the Middle Ages, but some of his proeedures point toward the future. He should be seen both as a medieval theologian and a modern philosopher. Before I finish this brief introduction I would like to say something concerning Suarez's influence on the Catholic tradition, modern thought, and Latin American scholasticism. Along with Augustine, Aquinas, and other figures of similar stature, Suarez is one of the most influential figures in Catholicism. As noted earlier, he lived at a time when the Catholic Church was trying to respond to the growing challenge of Protestantism and the secularizing impact of humanism. Suarez played a major role in that response. Many of his theological ideas were eonsidered highly original at the time and have become part of the common stock of Catholie theology. His analogical understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, his position concerning the motivation for the Incarnation, and his views about morality have all played important roles in Catholic teaching. But perhaps it is his doctrine ofthe relation among divine grace, merit, and human freedom that most firmly established his influenee and most evidently contrasts hirn with the Protestant ideas of the times. Although, as with many of his other views, the original intuition originated elsewhere-in the ease of graee with Molina-Suarez completed and systematized those ideas, providing an adequate presentation of and a credible foundation for them.

loJean-Franois Courtine has called the Disputationes metaphysicae "a work of passage" in "Le project suarezien de la metaphysique," Archives de Philosophie 42 (1979): 236. ------------- ------------

SuAREz

265

Suarez's standing within the Catholic Church was recognized by Popes Paul V, Alexander VII, Benedict XIV, and Pius XII. His official title, conferred by Paul V, is Doctor Eximius, indicating his exceptional stature within the Catholic tradition. Moreover, although his views have never been adopted officially by the Jesuits, his influence on the members of the order has been profound and lasting. Indeed, Suarecianism is alive to this day among many Jesuit philosophers and theologians, who see his ideas as an alternative to the pervasive Thomism that has characterized Catholic teaching since the late nineteenth century. Suarez's influence, however, is not confined to the Catholic tradition. Most early modern philosophers learned metaphysics from Suarez's Disputationes and many of their ideas can be traced to that work. 11 Among those on whom Suarez's impact is most evident are Jungius, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Wolff, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Vico, but echoes of his language and views can be seen in many others, including Locke. Indeed, Suarez is often blamed for contributing to the development of mentalistic metaphysics characteristic of modern philosophy. Whether this attribution is correct is a matter of debate and the subject matter of one ofthe articles in this collection. What is clear, however, is that Suarez's terminology seeped into early modern philosophy and became a part of the common philosophical way of speaking. In addition to his metaphysics, moreover, his legal and political views had considerable impact on modern legal theorists such as Holdsworth and Grotius. Indeed, some consider Suarez's thought in these areas as influential and valuable as, if not more influential and valuable than, his metaphysical views. Finally, I should mention in closing an area of Suarecian influence that is frequently neglected: his impact on Latin American thought. The new world was discovered in 1492 and bythe middle ofthe next century schools and universities where scholastic thought was taught had begun to function in Mexico and elsewhere. Thus, by the time Suarez's Disputationes metaphysicae were published in 1597, there was a ready audience available for them. The result was to be expected: Suarez's metaphysical and theological views established themselves as alternatives to the already popular views of Thomas, Scotus, and Ockham.

nSee, for example, John Doyle, "'Extrinsic Cognoscibility': A Seventeenth Century Supertranscendental Notion," The Modern Schoolman 68 (1990): 57-80, and J. Iriarte, "La proyeccion sobre Europa de una gran metafisica, 0 Suarez en la filosofia en los dias deI Barroco," Razon y Fe, numero extraordinario (1948): 229-65. Iriarte points out, for example, that in the forty years that followed their publication, the Disputationes went through at least seventeen editions outside the Iberian peninsula. By comparison, Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy were edited only nine times in the sixty years that followed their publication in 1641, in spite of their relatively small size.

266

AMERICAN CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY

Indeed, it was not until weIl into the eighteenth century that, owing to the general decline of scholasticism in Latin America at the time, the influence of Suarez began to wane. 12 From all this it should be clear that Suarez's ideas are not only part of, but have become intrinsically woven into, the Western tradition. It is high time, therefore, that we recognize it in the English speaking world.

State University of New York at Buffalo Buffalo, New York

12

For further information on the development of scholasticism in Latin America, see my "Scholasticism: ABridge between Classical Antiquity and Colonial Latin American Thought," in J. Rufus Fears, Wolfgang Haase, and Meyer Reinhold, eds., The Classical Tradition in the Americas, vol. 4. forthcoming.