Aristotle’s Categories in the Byzantine, Arabic, and Latin Traditions ed. by Sten Ebbesen, John Marenbon, and Paul Thom (review)

This volume, surveying a narrow topic over a long expanse of time, is comprised of selections from a trio of international conferences on the title theme. It is an expensive book, but even its most valuable articles are marred by slovenly editing.

Börje Bydén’s contribution begins the survey in Byzantium. By linking Photios’s (apparently) original criticism of Aristotle to Plotinus, Bydén gives an interesting hint of how neo-Platonism came to permeate Christianity. But Photios seems to have been “ignored by posterity” (31). Bydén’s commendable remedy: more and updated critical editions of texts from Greek scholasticism. (The Hadot reference on 25n44, missing in the bibliography, is to Hadot’s 1990 French edition of Simplicius.)

A comparable influence, of Aristotelian logic on theology, is shown in Ken Parry’s article discussing how the definition of homonomy (1a1) was utilized in defense of icons in Byzantium. An icon is but an image of its model, only relatively similar to its visual form, not incorporating its essence. Parry’s clarity of presentation is marred by scattershot punctuation and misspellings of the works cited.

There is little doubt of the need for editions and re-editions of medieval Arabic philosophical works. Heidrun Eichner succeeds in her stated goal of pointing to differing accounts of the categories in Avicenna. Eichner exhibits painstaking care for the diacritical marks required in Arabic (though surely it should read ‘Aġrāḍ’, 77 line 7)—more the pity that her English grammar and punctuation were left unrevised.

It is far better to publish in fluent French (or German, etc.), as does Cristina Cerami, than in halting English. Cerami shows that there is no opposition between Averroës’s earlier and later treatments of substance. Interestingly, she argues that Simplicius might be used to help understand Averroës’s distinctions, although without postulating any direct influence. Yet once again the author is failed by the editors; the bibliography (like Parry’s and Marenbon’s) is not even in alphabetical order.

The most important aspect of John Marenbon’s contribution is his announcement of a website cataloging anonymous commentaries on the Categories before 1200—where this sort of material belongs. Unfortunately until then its errors cannot be emended. It refers throughout to C16 as Porretanean; perhaps C12 is meant? The typesetter seems to have had trouble distinguishing the letter ‘L’ from the number ‘1’; thus should be read ‘C1’ (157), ‘C21’ (162), ‘1ra’ (165). Like the glosses on the Categories themselves, this current assemblage must be said to lack “integrity and stability” (142).

Paul Thom’s article is a model of clarity and caution. His conclusion is that Robert Kilwardby’s differing treatments of relation can be seen as “a theoretical reworking of the same philosophical position into one that is more ontologically oriented, more conceptually focused, and less artificial” (192).

Costantino Marmo’s article complements Thom’s relative neglect of the role of relation in theology and grammar. A puzzle raised by Marmo asks why theological discussions of relation seldom mention the distinction between relations per se and per accidens (210). A tempting answer is that the medievals dared not call the relations in the Trinity per se, because that would ruin divine simplicity; they dared not call them per accidens, because that would prevent the distinction of Persons as theorized by Augustine and Boethius. It was safest not to raise the distinction in this context at all.

Fabrizio Amerini’s use of published texts provides a worthwhile analysis of two “philosophical intuitions” he finds in debates on the nature of the categories. I trust his promised forthcoming works will continue to develop upon these original observations.

Joël Biard shows a new treatment of the categories of...