| A clear thread runs from Duns Scotus, through William of Ockham to Suarez in the explanation of the distinction of essence and existence. There has been, on the part of these men, a violent reaction to the real distinction between essence and existence, as proposed by St. Thomas. This opposition is based on their rejection of essence and existence as real physical entities which, so they thought, would be required in the real distinction of St. Thomas. In other words, for these men the real distinction is only valid if applied to physical entities which are separable. Such, of course, is not the doctrine of St. Thomas; nevertheless these men have rejected the real distinction for this reason. Why historically this particular doctrine of physical entities was involved in the Thomistic real distinction is not, at the present time, so clear as historians of philosophy would like. It does seem, however, that Giles of Rome is at least partly responsible for this identification of the real distinction with physical entities. Giles of Rome, then, is an important figure in the history of the real distinction. And if for no other reason, this present treatise is of historical importance. |
| Since this translation is based on the critical edition of Father Edgar Hocedez, S.J., I think that I can do no better service to the reader than to give his preface to his critical work. |
| "The glory of Giles of Rome has grown dim since the time, far remote, when Godfrey of Fontaines acclaimed him the greatest teacher in the University of Paris. The important works of Richard Scholz and Jean Riviere have uncovered the importance and originality of his political thought, but the historians of philosophy are in agreement that the metaphysics of Giles is as yet little known; yet, this does not hinder these same historians from criticizing him rather severely. |
| "It is a strange paradox that a title of honor should have become the cause of his misfortunes in philosophy. He was received as a disciple of St. Thomas and as a result he has been judged in the light of an orthodox Thomist. This judgment has not been too kind to him: if he disagrees with the Angelic Doctor he is accused of being unfaithful or of being an eclectic; if he agrees with his master, he is reproached with the charge of lacking originality. A more attentive and more sympathetic study of his works, a study that is less concerned with placing him in a school of thought, will render the greatest service to the memory of Giles of Rome. |
| "Giles is a thinker. Jean Riviere has justly praised, in Giles' political works, his rare power of synthesis, and, while acknowledging the faults |
|
