Surveying the recent literature on analogy, I am curious about why so few people consult Santiago Ramirez’ four-volume De analogia.  I think that it is by far the best work on the subject. 

The neglect of Ramirez is not new.  I just this morning noticed that although Klubertanz, in St. Thomas on Analogy, mentions Ramirez’ earlier articles (Ramirez’ book was published later), he cites him as J (Iacobus) Ramirez for the 1921-1922 article, and S.M. (Santiago Maria) Ramirez for the 1953 article.  This 1953 article is reprinted at the end of vol. 4 of De analogia.   Ramirez never fully finished the De analogia, since he suffered from health problems.

For those intersted in the citations: Ramirez is listed on Klubertanz, p. 10, note 11, as someone who argues that Cajetan’s interpretation is that of Thomas.  On pp. 14-15, he is mentioned as supporting a position that “deprives the position of Cajetan and his followers of its claim to a textual basis in St. Thomas.”  In fairness to Klubertanz, it is the 1953 article in which Ramirez - to my mind convincingly but not conclusively - argues that the threefold division in I Sent, d. 19 is merely between inequality, intrinsic, and extrinsic attribution, and does not map on to the De Veritate, q. 2, art. 11. 

I don’t know if there is a clearer listing of Thomas’ texts than in Appendix One of Klubertanz.  But Ramirez mentions all of the texts, I think, and puts them in a more helpful order.