Michael Ewbank

This remarkable collection of studies within the area of metaphysics focuses on figures in the period of 1250 to 1350, with retrospective and prospective considerations of ancient sources and repercussions in the Renaissance. Where necessary, these previously published articles are revised in the light of more recent investigations, and references to obsolete editions are supplemented with citations of newer, critical editions. Reflecting over forty years of research, these twenty-three selected essays remain substantially unchanged with the exception of a study on the metaphysical doctrine of Siger of Brabant.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ exposition of the Liber de causis, one of the few extended commentaries on this influential work, has received much greater detailed attention during recent decades. Nonetheless, interpretations have diverged concerning how this Neoplatonic source was assimilated and refined by Aquinas. It is not only important to comprehend the originality of procedures and accomplishment of St. Thomas in relation to his work for the sake of historical precision. Equally important is the intention of both the author and his commentator, which is to contribute to our grasp of reality in terms of fundamental metaphysical principles

Odd Langholm has previously given us three important book-length studies on price and value, wealth and money in the Aristotelian tradition, and the Aristotelian analysis of usury. The present work is an effort to integrate virtually all the secondary literature on economic speculation by every significant figure who studied or taught at Paris during its golden age. This is no mere compilation of prior research, however. The author has made detailed examinations of unedited manuscripts and rare incunabula in order to present a panorama of diverse speculators, each with his own intellectual genotype. In offering new interpretations and important nuances to previously established conclusions, this work may well serve as an indispensable reference for future investigations into medieval and early modern economic thought.

Originative apprehension often has been examined in recent decades in light of Aquinas’ reflections. Yet there has not always been agreement in regard to what constitutes such, often due to different emphases given by interpreters to aspects of St. Thomas’ analyses articulated in different contexts. Arguably, it is possible to reconcile certain seemingly divergent important interpretations by reflecting on an important, yet somewhat recessive, theme that Thomas adverted to sparingly throughout his career in utilizing analyses of predecessors to forge his own synthesis to explain cognition in terms of being that is centered on the reciprocal priorities of judging and concomitant incomplex abstracting.

Utilizing the 1894 edition of Simplicius's commentary by J. L. Heiberg in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, and P. Moraux's 1965 edition of Aristotle's De Caelo, this translation continues a valuable project under the general editorship of R. Sorabji that offers English readers access to works by ancient commentators on Aristotle. By comparing pertinent printed editions and manuscripts, Mueller has maintained the highest standards in weighing variant readings. This is evidenced in the 500 notes, which include not only clarifications of and justifications for particular readings of troublesome passages, but also Simplicius's likely sources along with corrections to misinterpretations of the author by later scholars.

Peter of Bergomo, one of the first to attempt to compile an index and concordance of Aquinas's works, often noted apparent discrepancies between diverse texts. His entry for "accidens" is no exception since approximately ten percent of its divisions are prefaced by the familiar "oppositum videtur dicere." The reader is left with the task of determining whether Bergomo's notations concern only apparent contradictions or whether St. Thomas indeed made significant alterations in his understanding of the topic. Brown's portrayal of Aquinas's texts in their specific contexts permits a nuanced interpretation of St. Thomas's diverse considerations of the being of accidents which avoids both of the aforementioned alternatives.

This presentation of one of the most coherent articulations of knowledge and sign theory available at the time of emerging Renaissance speculation is of interest for both doctrinal and historical reasons. A secondary achievement is a general defense of the objectivity of knowledge which takes the reflections of De Saussure and Derrida into account, as well as the historical origin of their concerns in Kant's understanding of how his own predecessors understood judgment. All of these portrayals, however, are consistently utilized to highlight John of St. Thomas's systematization and development of Medieval sources.