boldest efforts of reason
are united with the submissiveness of faith.

His works fill twenty-five large quarto volumes of the Parma edition.
This is, so far, the most complete collection, though various portions
have been edited from time to time with the commentaries of learned
theologians like Cajetan and Sylvius. Partial translations have also
been made into several modern languages; but as yet there is no complete
English edition of St. Thomas.

Turning to the Latin text, the student cannot but notice the contrast
between the easy diction of modern philosophical writers and the rugged
conciseness of the mediaeval Schoolman. On the other hand, disappointment
awaits those who quit the pages of Cicero for the less elegant Latinity
of the Middle Ages. What can be said in favor of scholastic "style" is
that it expresses clearly and tersely the subtle shades of thought which
had developed through thirteen centuries, and which often necessitated a
sacrifice of classic form. With the Schoolmen, as with modern writers on
scientific subjects, precision was the first requisite, and terminology
was of more consequence than literary beauty.

Similar standards must be kept in view when we pass judgment upon the
technique of St. Thomas. In his presentation we find neither the
eloquence nor the rhetoric of the Fathers. He quotes them continually,
and in some of his works adopts their division into books and chapters.
But his exposition is more compact, consisting at times of clear-cut
arguments in series without an attempt at transition, at other times of
sustained reasoning processes in which no phrase is superfluous and no
word ambiguous. Elsewhere he uses the more rigid mold which was peculiar
to the Scholastic Period, and had been fashioned chiefly by Alexander
Hales. Each subject is divided into so many "questions," and each
question into so many "articles." The "article" begins with the
statement of objections, then discusses various opinions, establishes
the author's position, and closes with a solution of the difficulties
which that position may encounter. This method had its advantages. It
facilitated analysis, and obliged the writer to examine every aspect of
a problem. It secured breadth of view and thoroughness of treatment. It
was, especially, a transparent medium for reason, unbiased by either
sentiment or verbiage.

If such qualities of style and presentation were encouraged by the
environment in which Aquinas