I will stipulate that as a man obsessed with Aquinas for much of his life, McInerny's translation of this polemical work of Aquinas is probably very careful and faithful. But his words introducing this work are manifestly misleading in presenting the impetus for such polemics in the more specific matter of Averroeism, and this seems egregious prefacing a work that is admitted to be a sort of polemic. One would scarcely get a sense that this piece can be seen as part of what is usually called more honestly the Mendicant Controversy, and that it was vastly more messy than this focus on Averroes would likely make readers think, on McInerny's telling. It is simply a propagandistic and not a scholar's intent to portray the background situation for the reception of Aristotle the way McInterny does here. One scarcely gets a sense that condemnation from the Pope and Bishops were flying during this very period against Aristotle and Aristotelianism with Averroeism really being a side issue, and that many innocent students were caught in the melee. And it surely would have been relevant to point out that Averroeism was not formally condemned by the Catholic Church till the Fifth Lateran Council centuries later. Thus, the use of the specific Averroeist contretemps is used to somehow obscure the vastly more important fact that there was no clear, discernible coherent position institutionally on the use of Aristotle till much later. But that would cast Aquinas himself in a more unstable light, and so a cherry-picking approach is attempted here by McInerny. Surely, this is because great pains are taken to make the whole period that produced the "Angelic Doctor" more consistent than it remotely was. Precisely because it highlights the weakness in Aquinas' approach from the start, and his whole project's genesis in a kind of broad polemics. A real disservice to intellectual history.