In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

498 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY sketchy and scattered. On the other hand, Hocks's interpretation of Henry James assumes a familiarity with the novels and stories, plus a good deal of literary criticism, which only a few possess. It is likely that Hocks's audience will self-select into a cadre of Henry James scholars who will continue to fuss and quarrel as they do in the pages of the book itself. This is not to say, of course, that philosophers would necessarily do better if someone from their community tried to analyze the relations between these two men from the side of William James and his philosophy. What does emerge, however, is that the thought and character of the James brothers continue to be a fascinating topic, one that deserves treatment which makes both writers more accessible. Hocks has staked a claim in fertile territory with his study. Unfortunately, how to work that field to the best advantage remains a pragmatic problem which his book leaves unsolved. JOHN K. RoTa Claremont Men's College BOOK NOTES Theorica planetarum. By Campanus of Novara. Edited with an introduction, English translation , and commentary by Francis S. Benjamin, Jr. and G. J. Toomer. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1971) "The Theorica planetarum is of interest because it is the first detailed account of the Ptolemaic astronomical system, which was the basis of all later medieval cosmology, to be written in the Latin-speaking West." Thus write the editors in the "Preface" to their scholarly work. Although a Latin translation of Ptolemy's AImagest had been available for about a century before the appearance of Campanus' thirteenth-century work, the latter, while retaining a technical character, was more readable than the A lmagest and was widely read in the centuries following its composition. The Theorica planetarum contained an exposition of Ptolemaic astronomy and a description of the "equatorium," a mechanical contrivance which could be used to compute planetary positions. The fact that Campanus was a contemporary of Roger Bacon, Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Witelo, John Pecham, and other luminaries of thirteenth-century philosophy and science makes his work pertinent to the understanding of the broader intellectual context of the philosophy of this era. Consequently this work is a welcome addition to the University of Wisconsin's landmark series of texts on medieval science. The book contains a facing-page Latin text and translation of Campanus's treatise, as well as an impressively detailed scholarly apparatus. It will prove to be a useful work for anyone interested in exploring the state of medieval astronomy in the thirteenth century. MARGARETJ. OSLER Tractatus called afterwards Summulae logicales. By Peter of Spain. First Critical Edition from the Manuscripts with an Introduction by L. M. de Rijk. (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1972, Pp. cxxix -[- 303) This is the first critical edition, in Latin, of the most celebrated of all mediaeval textbooks of logic, the Summulae logicales of Peter of Spain, who later became Pope John XXI. Dr. de Rijk, professor of mediaeval philosophy at the universities of Leyden and Utrecht, has prepared the text and critical apparatus, and written, in English, a lengthy introduction. Professor de Rijk is well known for his edition of Abelard's Dialectica and for his original works on the history of logic in the Middle Ages. His critical Latin text of Peter of Spain's famous work is of the very highest quality, and is based on five of the oldest and best manu- BOOK NOTES 499 scripts. There are more than 300 extant manuscripts, and about 200 editions were printed from 1474 to I639, which indicate how widely this excellent logic textbook was used, and how indispensable it is for the study of mediaeval and Renaissance philosophy. The text of this new edition is arranged and printed with such admirable clarity that the reader is greatly aided in finding his way through these subtle and complex logical problems. In his introduction, de Rijk shows from the evidence of the manuscripts themselves that the traditional attribution to Pope John XXI is correct. The probable place of writing was Le6n in northern Spain, and the probable date around 1230. The editor's vast erudition in mediaeval logic...