This is an interesting book. It appears that Pieper is a German Thomist who has written a general interest book on Scholasticism. He identifies 529 as the turning point from Hellenism to Scholasticism, or the Middle Ages. That is nearly the date that Augustine died, 525, and the date that Cassiodorus headed for the hills. It is also the epoch of Boethius, who had one foot is both eras. The primary access to Aristotle during this time was the Peri Hermenia and Categories, thus entailing a focus on language and logic. Only with the introduction of Aristotle around 1215 do we get the revival of Averroism and Aquinas. More treatment of logical issues and ontological questions would be welcomed, as Pieper concentrates primarily on theological questions. Evenso, this is a once over very lightly treatment of medieval philosophy that is well written and intelligently conceived.

Written prior to the recent interest in medieval studies, this book still gives a fine introduction to the era, and explains the significance not only of the great Scholastics, but also of lesser known figures like Cassiodorus, Pseudo-Dionysius, John of Salisbury, and Siger of Brabant. Both the fundamental problematic of the Scholastic--to unite the deliverances of faith and reason, in accordance with the motto "Credo ut intelligam"--and the attempts of different philosophers to carry out this project are detailed and explained clearly and in simple language. This book does not, however, discuss philosophical problems in any detail, and can only serve as a general introduction. Still, its brevity, clarity, and self-contained approach make it a good starting place for the philosopher interested in this topic.

Some works of literature wear well with time, and some do not.

Understandably, The Deputy was quite a red-hot item 40 years ago, when there was a certain frisson in criticizing a recently-deceased Pope, and not a great deal of historical work had been done to analyze the opposition of the Catholic Church against Hitlerism.

But now, at the beginning of the 21st Century, a wealth of actual documentary evidence can take the place of the fictitious imaginings, sceptical conjectures, and whole-cloth fabrications which make up the basis of this play.

At the time of its writing, it must havce seemed daring and challenging in a disturbing but healthy sense. Now it looks more like, at best, sophomoric propaganda, and at worst, like a new and deeply unattractive variation on Blood Libel.

I was tempted to write a long review, pointing out how this play is merely a tissue of lies, using quotes from both Catholic and Jewish sources that prove that Pius XII saved millions of lives in the Second World War, both Jewish and Gentile. However, I think this quote will be more effective. It is from the book _Hitler's Pope_ by John Cornwell, obviously not a friend or supporter of Pius XII:

"[The Deputy is] historical fiction based on scant documentation...[T]he characterization of Pacelli (Pius XII) as a money-grubbing hypocrite is so wide of the mark as to be ludicrous. Importantly, however, Hochhuth's play offends the most basic criteria of documentary: that such stories and portrayals are valid only if they are demonstrably true."

If one of Pius XII's loudest critics dismisses this work as rubbish, can anyone really believe that it portrays the truth of the matter?

"The Deputy" is stunning and still relevant, despite the acidic reviews you might find here contesting the pertinence of this play. It's more than probable the negative ratings in regards to this piece belong to the pious who, instead of looking at the objective facts, hide behind their own grandiose illusions regarding the dogmas into which they have been indoctrinated.

Afterall, is there any historical doubt that Pope Pius XII did not publicly condemn the wholesale slaughter of Jews by the Nazi regime? I haven't seen any document stating otherwise. Sure, he made blanket condemnations pronounced in the garb of generalities, but that's not what Hochhuth's play addresses. It's a simple question we must ask: should, as some consider, the highest moral authority on the planet straddle the fence in an attempt not to offend anyone, or should we expect a public condemnation of evil on such a grand scale? This, in my view, and in sum, is the dilemma the play poses to each reader.