Queries
First, to explain what I have been asked to do at this stage: I have edited all the editorial material on screen and am attaching the files herewith. In addition to answering my queries below, please check through to ensure that you are happy with the changes I have suggested (in red). If you want to make any changes yourself, or to make any comments, please do so in blue without erasing my red marks.
The rest of the book – the published extracts – is only scanned at this stage to pick up briefing points for the typesetter, and to mark up displayed material, notes, references, etc. The whole book will be read by Blackwell’s proofreader once it has been typeset, and any queries raised with you then. The chapters you see on proof will retain their original styling with regard to spelling, punctuation, etc. – we do not instruct the setter to standardize between chapters (for example to make all quote marks double, or to use American spelling). I mention this now so that you know what to expect.
Please reply to the queries below by typing in a distinctive colour below the query and returning the whole list to me. Thank you.
EDITORIAL MATERIAL
General Introduction
I was asked to look at a possible reduction in the use of “scare” quotes and have marked a few for deletion in the earlier part of this introduction. Please say if this is OK. Yes, thank you.
I have deleted one or two dates where they were given more than once. OK, thank you.
Please check the hierarchy of heading levels (a, b, c) and confirm I have labelled them correctly. Yes, A-OK.
3 Spade quote: are there two words missing (shown red)? They are not in the original text, but I think we may add those words in brackets.
I’ve created footnotes for the two Spade refs here in line with the style in the other introductions. Please check the URL (see queries on bibliography below). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/medieval-philosophy/
8 I’ve standardized on giving the Latin title of a work then the translation: please check they are OK (shown in red). OK, with one correction noted in the text
10 John Buridan (ca. 1300--58): add /61 as you had in the (deleted) repeat you gave later on? 58/61 is better, as noted in the text
17 I’ve suggested removing a few repeats of “possibility” here as it was slightly confusing, but please say if you want them restored. Yes, your version is definitely smoother. I’d only have ‘realizable’ instead of ‘achievable’ for the reason noted in the text.
Part I Introduction
3 ‘grounded by’: grounded in? OK
notes 4, 6 Please check URLs. A-OK
note 5 Which item in the Further Reading are you citing here? It might be more helpful to give readers a Harvard reference so that they can find the item easily. It’s not listed among the Further Readings. The full reference is: John Buridan: Summulae de Dialectica, an annotated translation with a philosophical introduction, tr. Gyula Klima, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001
Part II Introduction
1 ‘Augustine’s division, which in the division of the Dialectica Monacensis (presented in the first part’: I was slightly confused by the repeat of ‘division’ here: can the second be deleted or have I misread? It’s OK to drop ‘the division of’
Avoid too many ‘particular’s? OK
2 ‘a great deal of issues’: either ‘a great deal’ or ‘a large number of issues’? ‘a great deal’ is better
4 Aquinas, the last selection: if this is no. 27 it isn’t the last in the section, so give the number? OK as corrected, thank you for catching this!
5 ‘the incomprehensibility of His essence by us’: ‘despite our inability to comprehend His essence’? Yes, ‘despite our inability to comprehend His essence’ is better
‘as that than which nothing greater can be thought’: conceived? ‘Conceived’ is better.
Part III Introduction
I’ve added note 1 to move your reference out of the text here. Thank you!
Bibliography
The URL for the Stanford Encyclopedia didn’t work: please check and correct entries as necessary, in blue. Thank you.
I wasn’t sure what order the key figures were listed in, but it would make it much easier for readers to refer to if they were in alphabetical order of the first name that appears in the heading: would you be happy for me to make this change? Alphabetical order is fine too.
1 Markus 1972: place of publication? added
3 Haldane 2002: Is the place Notre Dame? yes
Donati 2003: page extent? added
4 I think we need to add a heading here to divide the ‘part’ section from the ‘figures’ section: is this one OK? OK
Broadie 1982: Clarendon Press should be Oxford; or change imprint to Oxford University Press? OUP
5 Holscher 1986: London? Yes
Klima 2000b: Dordrecht? (also cited introduction to part II) Yes
6 Kent, Bonnie. 1994: Stump and Kretzmann is 2001 above under ‘Augustine’? 2001
READINGS
1 Augustine
Insert a covering heading, ‘Book VIII’ (as we have in number 36)? Yes, please.
3 Aquinas
I’ve deleted the first note and added the information to the source list in the prelims. I have done this with similar initial notes throughout (e.g. Summa Lamberti, 9: Augustine; 15: Aquinas). Thank you.
I’ve deleted the ‘Index’ pointers throughout. Thank you.
Throughout the readings, what does ia indicate in Aquinas’ references? It comes up rather often, and I thought I should check it doesn’t need expanding. 1a (sometimes just I, or ST1) abbreviates Prima (Pars), the first of the three parts of the Summa Theologiae, the second of which consists of two parts; so, 1a2ae (I-II or ST1-2) refers to the first, and 2a2ae (II-II or ST2-2) refers to the second of the second part, and 3a (III, ST3) refers to the third part. Perhaps, this can be briefly explained at the first occurrence of this abbreviation and then leave it alone?
8 Buridan
Notes: Delete cross-references to parts not included in this selection (i.e. all of notes 1 and 6; also in nn. 2 and 5)? Yes, please.
9 Augustine
Should we delete VIII in the heading on p. 82 as it looks odd following the earlier, unnumbered, heading? Yes. Alternatively, insert, ‘Book II, Chapter’ in front, to indicate the origin of the passage. In general, I think it would be a good idea to provide a short reference to the source of each selection in the text itself, if it’s not too complicated. But if it is, then readers will still have the list of sources to rely on.
10 Aquinas
The note copy is incomplete (presumably they are printed on the left-hand pages that I don’t have); also, some are lettered while others are numbered. Please confirm you want to include the notes; if so, please could you supply the notes listed below (refs. are to the original page numbering). All original texts are available here: http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/Blackwell-final-script/
We will need to incorporate lettered notes into a single numbered sequence: should we revert back to note 1 at the start of each Question or through-number into a single sequence? (This will also affect numbers 3, 10, 27, 34.) I don’t think all notes should be preserved. We should only keep those that identify Aquinas’ references, and the occasional explanatory notes. But we can also do without any notes whatsoever. I’d leave this to your judgment.
missing notes
p. 29 notes 1 and 2
p. 31 notes 5 and 6
p. 33 notes 9 , 10, 11
p. 49 notes 1, a, 2
I have deleted the reference in the note copy to Appendix A.
p. 51 notes 3, 4, 5
p. 55 notes b and 9
p. 57 notes d, 10, and 1
p. 61 notes 4, b, 5, c, 6
p. 63 notes e, f, g
p. 91 note 1
p. 93 notes 5, 6
p. 29 I think we should insert the main ‘Question’ heading to preface the subsection that begins here (followed by [...] of course, since it starts at Article 5). Could you give me the number and heading please? Summa Theologiae I, Question 85,
11 Aquinas
The heading doesn’t give the information, so will readers understand the parenthetical references (99b20 etc.) and references to ‘the Philosopher’, or should a note be added (‘All references are to Aristotle, Posterior Analytics)?
Yes, all these provide “pagination-independent” references to Aristotle’s passages in this work. I think I mentioned in the Introduction that “the Philosopher” is Aristotle, but it won’t hurt to add a note for students’ sake.
12 Henry of Ghent
p. 114 What is the significance of items in curly braces { }? Those are references to the folios of the Latin text – they may be omitted.
Lines 2 and 5 up: delete references to ‘the preceding question’? The page references can certainly be omitted. The phrase ‘the preceding question’ I think may stay.
13 Duns Scotus
Delete all note cues in this reading? Yes, please. If not, please supply all notes.
15 Aquinas
I have inserted headings ‘Question 17, article 3’, ‘Question 85, article 6’ (taken from the ‘index’ at top right, which I’ve now deleted) so that the structure matches that of other similar Aquinas readings. Do you want also to add the questions themselves (please supply if so)? Please insert both the question and article numbers (the question topic is not needed).
Gloss ‘the Philosopher’ at first occurrence? Well, why not? – for the sake of those who do not read the book cover to cover.
Delete cross-references to question and article (at page 2 lines 3-4 and 5, page 3 line 3 of text)? Yes, please.
16 Henry of Ghent
What do the figures in curly braces refer to? Delete? Or gloss with a note? Delete, please.
I have deleted notes 6, 7, and 8 as they are cross-references. OK
18 Buridan
Could we insert covering headings in square brackets for the first and second selections here to clarify the break between them? For example:
‘[Whether It Is Possible to Comprehend the Truth about Things]’ [on page 1]
‘[The Differences between Knowledge and Opinion]’ [on page 706] Yes, please. Good idea.
I have through-numbered the notes in the two selections: is that OK? Can we delete notes 188 (p. 709) and 190 (p. 710)? ‘Yes’ to all.
19 Aquinas
Should the headings (C.1 etc.) be amended to ‘Chapter 1’ etc.? Yes, please.
20 Aquinas
Please supply copy for note 2: it has been cut off on the photocopy we have.
The note reads: See also Aristotle, Physics I.7 189b30.191a22.
But, again, my original files are available here:
http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/Blackwell-final-script/
22 Condemnation
I’ve deleted the bibliography at the end: OK? Yes.
Would it be worth repeating, from your part introduction, that items numbered ‘A’ refer to the theses of Aquinas (e.g. in a note at the first occurrence)? Yes, absolutely.
25 Averroës
Delete all note cues (no notes supplied)? Or please supply all notes. Please, delete them. The notes are for Arabic scholars; no use for students.
27 Aquinas
The same issue arises as for no. 10 above. Please supply notes listed below. Or delete all note cues? http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/Blackwell-final-script/ -- again, I leave it to you which notes should be preserved.
Should the last 3 lines of text on page 13 be deleted? They don’t continue to the next page (i.e. p. 15 not supplied). Yes, of course, those belong to a new article. BTW, I think the selections from the Summa should only contain the whole reference to each article, say, “Summa Theologiae, Part I, question 76, article 1”, and the yes/no question of the article “Whether the intellective principle etc.”. But we don’t need the topic of the question (say, “question 76, the soul’s union with the body”) or the yes/no questions of other articles listed at the beginning of each question and the short introductory text accompanying this list.
p. 5 notes 1, 2
p. 7 notes 4, 5 and a, b (I have half a note but don’t know which one it is)
p. 9 notes 6, c, 7, a, 1, 2 (I have half a note)
p. 11 notes 3, 4, b
p. 13 notes c, 5, d, e, f (I have note 1 but presumably this is to be deleted - see query above)
p. 39 notes a, 1, 2, 3 (I have half a note)
p. 41 notes 4, 5, 6, 7, b (I have half a note)
p. 43 notes c, 8, d, 9, 10, 11, 12 (I have e)
p. 45 notes 13, f, 14, 15
p. 47 notes 16, 17
p. 49 notes 18, g
p. 51 notes a, 1, 2, b (I have c, d)
p. 53 note 3 (I have 4, 5, 6)
p. 55 note 7
p. 57 notes e, 8, 9
p. 59 notes 10, 11, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (I have a)
28 Buridan
What is the significance of the letters/numbers in square brackets throughout (are they references to De Anima?). Will readers understand or is a note needed? Those are references to the translator’s commentary, not supplied here. So they should just be deleted.
The notes supplied at the end are rather telegraphic; if they are to be retained (please confirm), we need some fuller details:
note 1: please supply full details of Crawford. Averrois Cordubensis Commentarium magnum in Aristotelis De anima libros. Recensuit F. Stuart Crawford (CCAA: Versio latina, Vol. VI, 1). Cambridge (Mass.), 1953.
note 6: I have converted this to a page reference to be added at proof stage as we aren’t retaining line numbers. OK
note 7, 8, 10, 11, 12: expand ‘Buridan’ to Questions on Aristotle’s De Anima, vol. 3/bk. 3? Yes, please.
note 12: Please supply details of Sobol 1984. Sobol, Peter Gordon (ed.): 1984, “John Buridan on the Soul and Sensation: An Edition of Book II of His Commentary on Aristotle's Book of the Soul, with an Introduction and a Translation of Question 18 on Sensible Species,” Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.