RESEAS DE LIBROS/ BOOK REVIEWS B RJE BYDÉN and CHRISTINA THOMSEN TH RNQVIST (eds.) The Aristotelian Tradition: Aristotle’s Works on Logic and Metaph sics and Their Reception in the Middle Ages Papers in Medieval Studies 28, Toronto Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 2010 125 pp. ISBN4 2080888458286 Reseado por SARA L. UCKELMAN, Durham Universi y s.l.uckelman%durham.ac.uk This book brings oge her welve ar icles on he opic of he in erpre a ion and recep ion of Aris o le’s works on logic and me aphysics in he Middle Ages. Af er ou lining a brief his ory of Aris o elian ransmission and commen ary from Aris o le’s successor, Theophras us, up hrough o he 1, h cen ury, he in roduc ion makes precise he scope of he volume. The primary focus is from he early 12 h cen ury up hrough he firs half of he 15 h cen ury, in he La in, Arabic, and .reek radi ions. In he La in ra0 di ion, emphasis is placed on he pre0Thomis ic1Alber ine recep ion of Aris o le, wi h chap ers by 2ulie 3rumberg0Chaumon , S en Ebbesen, 4eine 4ansen, Simo Knuu ila, Ana Mar5a Mora-M6r7ue8, and Chris ina Thomsen Th9rn7vis , demons ra ing he rich e: ual and concep ual developmen s ha wen on in ha period, hough A7uinas and his successors are no neglec ed, being discussed in chap ers by Fabri8io Amerini and 2akob Le h Fink. Unsurprisingly, he forerunner in he discussion of he Arabic radi ion, in Amerini’s chap er, is Averroes (ibn Ru=d); somewha surprisingly, here is no chap er devo ed o Avicenna. The .reek radi ion is discussed hrough he lens of he works of .eorge .emis os (Ple hon), he focus of chap ers by 39rAe 3ydBn, and 3ydBn, Ebbesen, Fink, 4ansen, Ka erina Ierodiakonou, Mora-M6r7ue8, and Miira Tuominen. Finally, here are wo chap ers, by David 3loch and Michail Perama 8is, which focus direc ly on Aris o le in erpre a ion, ra her han recep ion and which do no fi nea ly in o any of he hree main radi ions. Ra her han discussing he chap ers as hey are ordered in he book, I’ll bring hem all oge her under each of hese hree dis inc radi ions, af er firs covering 3loch’s and Perema 8is’s, which fi in o none of he radi ions. Modern Aristotelian exegesis Two chap ers are concerned predominan ly wi h he in erpre a ion of Aris o le, ra her han i Cs ransmission or recep ion. In his chap er, DAris o le on he E:ac ness or Cer ain y of Knowledge in Posterior Anal.tics I.2EF (pp. 1510161), 3loch a emp s o elucida e one of he Dmos enigma ic passages in he 0orpus Aristotelicum F (p. 151) which a emp s o rela e analyses of fac s and causes o he rela ive e:ac ness of sciences, 8EaI10 II. Appealing o he medieval radi ion in which 2ames of Venice ransla ed as certior , 3loch argues ha cen uries of modern commen a ors have missed he mark, and ha Aris o le is no alking abou he e:ac ness of he sciences bu of heir cer ain y. Perama 8is also akes up a opic of Aris o le in erpre a ion in his chap er, DAris o le’s KLogical’ Level of Me aphysical Inves iga ionF (pp. 81-1I0), focusing on he ransla ion of Revista Espaola de Filosofa Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISS : 1133-0902, pp. 155-175 156 REVIEWS in Metaph.sics . The narrow goal of his ra her long chap er is D o specify he salien fea ures of a par icular ype of case, he me aphysical Klogical’ in7uiry carried ou in Metaph.sics F, s ar ing wi h 4, wi hou Dcharac eri8ing he sense of 7ui e generally or even offering i s meaning wi hin he limi ed con e: of his bookF (p. 85). One conse7uence of his specifica ion is he impor an recogni ion ha Dwha is in he Metaph.sics , hen, may differ significan ly from wha is in he Anal.tics F (p. ,6). The 5atin tradition Opening he book is 4anson’s chap er DAccoun ing for Aristo le’s Ca egories: Some No es on he Medieval Sufficientiae Praedicamentorum before Alber he .rea F (pp. 16048). 4anson ackles a perennial 7ues ion in Aris o le in erpre a ionN Ohy these en ca egoriesP Pos 0medieval scholars such as Kan and Mill denigra ed Aris o le’s choice of ca egories as being unmo iva ed or incomple e (pp. 16-1E). 4owever, many medieval Aris o elian commen a ors, especially hose before Alber he .rea , a emp ed o show D ha he lis is nei her redundan nor defec ive, bu e:ac ly as i should beF (p. 1E) via he me hod of he Dsufficiency of he predicamen s». One of he mos influen ial Aris o elian e: s, af er i ’s re0dissemina ion in he 12 h cen ury, was he Sophistical Refutations . Ebbesen in his chap er DDemons ra ive Dispu0 a ion – A contradiction in adiecto P Medieval and Recen Commen a ors on Aris o le’s Sophistical Refutations , Chap er 2F (pp. 162018E) a ends o a close reading of his e: , and ca egorises differen ways in which medieval and modern commen a ors a emp ed o unders and he no ion of a Ddemons ra ive dispu a ionF – a seemingly con radic ory combina ion which Aris o le himself e:plici ly e:cludes in he Prior Anal.tics (p. 165). The responses o he worry ha a demons ra ive deduc ion is no a dispu a ion included no only solu ions bu also fur her problems, such as Da worry whe her here is any way a all ha he four ypes Rof dispu a ionS can be made in o species of he same genus» (p. 181). One common opic for commen ary, whe her ancien , medieval, or modern, is Aris o0 le’s modal syllogis ic as presen ed in he Prior Anal.tics , i s seeming inconsis ency and unsys ema ici y making i ripe for revision. This is he subAec of Knuu ila’s chap er, DEarly Medieval Discussions of Modal Syllogis icF (pp. 214022E), where he akes us on a our of reac ions o he opic from Ale:ander of Aphrodisias and 2ohn Philoponus all he way up o Campsall, Ockham, and 3uridan, wi h a brief (one paragraph only) digression on Avicenna and Averroes along he way. From he poin of view of e: ual ransmission, i is in eres ing o no e ha Knuu ila hinks ha if Kilwardby did no have access o he Anon.mus Aurelianiensis III ( he oldes known La in commen ary on he Prior Anal.tics ), hen bo h he and he anonymous au hor had access o ano her e: , perhaps Da La in ransla ion of a los si: h-cen ury .reek commen ary or a la er 3y8an ine compila ion of scholiaF (p. 22I). 3o h he la e an i7ue commen ary radi ion and he syllogis ic are aken up in Th9rn7vis ’s chap er, D3ridging he 3eginner’s .ap: Apuleius, 3oe hius, and Porphyry on he Ca egorical SyllogismF (pp. 2280248). Th9rn7vis 7ues ions he radi ional s ory, in Revista Espaola de Filosofa Medieval, 26/1 (2019), ISS : 1133-0902, pp. 155-175 RESE'AS 15E which 3oe hius drew upon Apuleius’s Peri hermeneias when wri ing his De s.llogismo categorico , and Dpropose a differen e:plana ion and discuss i s implica ions for previous heories on he possible sources and overall aim of ApuleiusCs workF (p. 228). Ohile 3oe hiusCs and Apuleius’s works share many similari ies, i is more likely ha hey were ul ima ely drawing from a common source han ha 3oe hius was direc ly working wi h Apuleius (p. 245). Fur hermore, she iden ifies 3oe hius’s model as DPorphyry’s los in roduc ion o he ca egorical syllogismF (p. 24E), and he similari ies be ween Porphyry and Apuleius are due o he wo of them sharing a source (p. 2460. The final chap er devo ed o he syllogism is 3rumberg0Chaumon ’s, DForm and Ma er of he Syllogism in Anon.mus 0antabrigiensis F (pp. 188021I). The Anon.mus 0anta- brigiensis e: , wri en a he urn of he hir een h cen ury, is closely associa ed wi h wo sligh ly earlier e: s, he Anon.mi Aurelianenses I and II. 3rumberg0Chaumon argues ha aken oge her, hese hree e: s and heir discussions of he form0ma er dis inc ion wi h respec o syllogisms represen Da decisive urning poin in he radi ion of commen aries on he Sophistical Refutations F (p. 18,), as i is in hese e: s, and mos especially in An0ant , he mos well0developed and coheren of he hree, ha D he form0 ma er dis inc ion becomes for he firs ime ac ually ins rumen al in he analysis and classifica ion of he hir een fallacies in he Sophistical Refutations F (p.