Dialogue

http://journals.cambridge.org/DIA

Additional services for Dialogue:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

On Formal and Universal Unity. (Mediaeval

Philosophical Texts in Translation, No. 15).
By Francis Suarez. Translated from the
Latin (De Unitate Formali et Universali) with
Introduction by J. F. Ross. Milwaukee,
Marquette University Press, 1964. p. 123.
Paper \$3.50.

Jerome V. Brown

Dialogue / Volume 5 / Issue 01 / June 1966, pp 104 - 106

DOI: 10.1017/S0012217300036301, Published online: 09 June 2010

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/

abstract_S0012217300036301

How to cite this article:

Jerome V. Brown (1966). Dialogue, 5, pp 104-106 doi:10.1017/
S0012217300036301

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/DIA, IP address: 150.216.68.200 on 06 Jun 2014

 COMPTES RENDUS

ON FORMAL AND UNIVERSAL UNITY. (Mediaeval Philoso-

phical Texts in Translation, No. 15). By FRANCIS SUAREZ. Trans-
lated from the Latin (De Unitate Formali et Universali) with Intro-
duction by J. F. Ross. Milwaukee, Marquette University Press,
1964. p. 123. Paper $3.50.

This translation may be taken as one more hopeful sign that the
work of Francis Suarez is coming to be recognized as something more
than the source of all the corruptions that have crept into "orthodox"
Thomism. It is difficult to appreciate the richness and profundity
of a man's thought when he is approached from such a viewpoint.
We have here a translation of Disputatio VI, one of the most important
sections of Suarez's major philosophical work, the Disputationes Meta-
physicae (cf. Opera Omnia, vol. 25, cols. 2oia-250a; Paris, Vives,
1856-1866). Considering the scarcity of English translations of Suarez,
it is a pity that the present translation is marred in several places by
errors and questionable interpretations which are evidence of a
task hastily begun and hastily concluded.
Perhaps the most unsatisfactory aspect of the work as a whole is the
total absence of references to critical—or at least available—editions
of works which Suarez himself is quoting and referring to. Apparently
it is assumed that the references given in the Latin text itself are al-
ways correct. Even this assumption does not seem to explain why
Ross translates, ". . .Augustine, treating of ideas in book 83, question
46 . . . ," and then adds in a footnote, "It is not clear which passage
of Augustine the author intends to refer to here." (p. 40) In addition,
not all the references are copied accurately from the Latin text;
there are mistakes on pp. 74, 75, 77, 85, m , 114, 119, 122
and 123.
Defects in the translation are commonplace: there are omissions
of Latin words and phrases, clumsy translations, inaccurate and in-
consistent translations, instances where more has been read into the
text than is actually there, and phrases and terms left in unexplained
Latin, or, what is perhaps more puzzling, translated into English
in one place and left in Latin at another.
The translator tells us, "On a few occasions we have dropped par-
ticles and incidental words which are repeated endlessly." (p. 28)
Still, this does not seem to justify the omission of ". . . quae con-
cipitur per modum unius entis indivisa, et communis multis, . . . "
(col. 207b; pp. 41-42); ". . . ut realiter existentem . . ." (col. 222b;
p. 71); ". . . in entitate sua . . ." (col. 224b; p. 75) and ". . . unde

104
 BOOK REVIEWS

necesse est, ut universale quatemus universale est consideret, . . . "

(col. 232b; p. 91).
Excogitare presents problems of its own. It seems to be quite satis-
factorily translated as "thought of" (pp. 85, 110) and the term "exco-
gitated" (pp. 68, 77, 103, 106) is a bit too literal. The same holds true
for the translation of substantialia by "substantivals" (p. 94) and tarn
inter se by "as much together" (p. 104). This passion for exactness could
have well been sacrificed in several other instances, such as this one:
"Otherwise, it would also have to be said that the numerically same
nature is contracted to the singular individual: than which nothing
could be more absurd" (. . . quo nihil potius esse absurdius). (p. 62).
Suarez's legal education would be sufficient to account for his use of
legal terminology. There is a perfectly sound legal meaning of suadeo
and it seems rather awkward to say of an argument of Scotus that it
must be "urged somewhat" (. . . aliquo modo suadenda est) (p. 31).
In other cases the dubious character of the translation is not owing
simply to awkwardness. In re and in rebus are repeatedly recorded as
"in reality" or "really". "Reality" has come to mean a good many things
in philosophical thought and while a bit more flexibility might have
been advisable in other parts of the translation, this is one time when
literalness should have been the rule. The notoriously rich word ratio is
another case in point. It is translated in no less than thirteen different
ways and we are given not the slightest indication of what standard
has been used for selecting one translation rather than another. The
standard is by no means obvious; "notion" is the most often used word
(it is also used to translate notio and intentio) and it is the feeling of this
reviewer that it makes Suarez into a good bit more of a nominalist
than he himself would care to admit. Other examples merely reinforce
this impression of haste in relation to the demands of the text. In
universali becomes "in general" (p. 41); actu becomes "actually"
(pp. 43, 48, 60, 77, 97); contractionem becomes "contradiction" (p. 43);
suum esse becomes "itself" (p. 85); differentia becomes "species" (pp. 113,
118); abstractum becomes "abstraction" (pp. 117, 118); distinctas
unitates formales becomes "distinct abstract formal unities" (p. 37)
and proprietor accidentalis becomes "proper accident" (p. 97). In at
least two places (pp. 68 and 89) there are instances where whole
sentences have been altered in their meaning owing to an improper
analysis of the relations of clauses.
In his own introduction to this translation, the author has promised
us a work on the problem of universals in the Middle Ages. We hope
that it is of the same high calibre as his excellent analysis of this

105
 COMPTES RENDUS

disputatio. He quite rightly stresses the baselessness of the criticism

that Suarez is a nominalist and gives us a map of the text that leaves
nothing to be desired.
JEROME V. BROWN
University of Windsor

VOLTAIRE NONCONFORMIST. By REBECCA H. GROSS. New

York: Philosophical Library, 1965. pp. v, 162. $4.50.

HELVETIUS A STUDY IN PERSECUTION. By D. W. SMITH.

Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1965. pp. viii, 248. $6.50.
The recent imprisonment of two writers in Russia for "anti-Soviet
propaganda" and the condemnation of yet another in exile as "de-
ranged" may cause some of us to recall the infamous censorship in
18th century France, which is a theme common to these two works.
Miss Gross' treatment of Voltaire's non-conformism, in her own
words "a factual account," suffers stylistically from reliance on in-
numerable and lengthy quotations (mostly from secondary sources).
In the two cases where she does throw herself into the work—first, in
speculating about what Voltaire's life might have been had his mother
lived, and second, in attributing Voltaire's non-conformism to his
rebelling against paternal authority—Miss Gross' analyses are as
facile as her narration. Perhaps the chief virtue of the book is the des-
cription offered of the various instruments used in the censorship
(such as the privilege and the permission tacite), together with a discussion
of the informal means employed to circumvent it.
By contrast, Mr. Smith's book is a critical and scholarly treatment,
not only of the social milieu of the Enlightenment, but also of the
religious and philosophical ideas of the period. In fact, it is only
partly—and I think, unimportantly—a "study in persecution." To be
sure, the events of the affaire De Vesprit are portrayed, with the roles
of the Crown, the Church, the Sorbonne, and the Parlement fully
delineated and related to one another. These official quarters con-
demned Helvetius and he was forced to retract three times. Moreover,
he was dismissed from his sinecure as the Queen's mattre d'hdtel. In
addition, there was the unofficial reaction of the Jesuits and Jansenists,
the Pamphleteers, and the philosophes, notably Voltaire, Rousseau,
and Diderot. Now, while Smith does distinguish between the official
and unofficial reactions to De Vesprit, he misleads the reader in including
them under the heading "persecution." Moreover, if one dwells too

106