Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy

Living Edition
| Editors: Henrik Lagerlund

Substance, Accident, and Modes

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1151-5_475-2


This entry presents the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accident and the interpretational problems it generated for medieval philosophers and theologians. A survey of the extensional and intensional problems of the distinction and some of the solutions proposed for them will lead to an analysis of the theoretical need to introduce the new ontological category of modes in late-medieval philosophy, paving the way to the abandonment of substance–accident metaphysics in early modern philosophy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


Primary Sources

  1. Buridan, J. (1989). John Buridan’s philosophy of mind: an edition and translation of book III of his ‘Questions on Aristotle’s De anima’ (third redaction) (ed. and trans: Zupko, J. A.). Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  2. Buridan, J. (2001). Summulae de dialectica (an annotated translation with a philosophical introduction by Klima, G.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. de Vio Cajetan, T. (1939) Scripta philosophica: commentaria in Praedicamenta Aristotelis (ed.: Laurent, M. H.). Angelicum: Romae.Google Scholar
  4. Pseudo-Campsall, R. (1982). Logica Campsale Anglicj, valde utilis et realis contra Ocham. In E. A. Synan (Ed.), The works of Richard Campsall (Vol. 2). Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
  5. Siger of Brabant. (1972a). Les Quaestiones super Librum de causis de Siger de Brabant (ed.: Marsala, A.). Louvain/Paris: Publications Universitaires/Béatrice-Nauwelaerts.Google Scholar
  6. Siger of Brabant. (1972b). De anima intellectiva (ed.: Bazan, B.). Siger de Brabant. Quaestiones in tertium de anima. De anima intellectiva. De aeternitate mundi, Philosophes médiévaux 13. Louvain/Paris: Publications Universitaires/Béatrice-Nauwelaerts.Google Scholar
  7. Siger of Brabant. (1983). Quaestiones in metaphysicam (ed.: Maurer, A.). Louvain-la-Neuve: Éditions de l’Institute Supérieur de philosophie.Google Scholar
  8. Suárez, F. (1947). On the various kinds of distinctions (Disputationes metaphysicae, Disputatio VII, De variis distinctionum generibus) (translation from the Latin with an introduction by Vollert CSJ STD). Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

  1. Angelelli, I. (1991). The ontological square. In H. Burkhardt & B. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of metaphysics and ontology, 2 vols. Munich: Philosophia.Google Scholar
  2. Bakker, P. (2001). Aristotelian metaphysics and Eucharistic theology: John Buridan and Marsilius of Inghen on the ontological status of accidental being. In J. M. M. H. Thijssen & J. Zupko (Eds.), The metaphysics and natural philosophy of John Buridan (pp. 247–264). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  3. De Rijk, L. M. (1967). Logica modernorum (Vol. II, Pt II). Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  4. Gracia, J., & Lloyd, N. (2006). Medieval theories of the categories. In EN Zalta. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2006 edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2006/entries/medieval-categories/.
  5. Klima, G. (1999a). Ockham’s semantics and ontology of the categories. In P. V. Spade (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Ockham (pp. 118–142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Klima, G. (1999b). Buridan’s logic and the ontology of modes. In S. Ebbesen & R. L. Friedman (Eds.), Medieval analyses in language and cognition (pp. 473–495). Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.Google Scholar
  7. Klima, G. (2002). Aquinas’ theory of the Copula and the analogy of being. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy, 5, 159–176.Google Scholar
  8. Klima, G. (2003). John Buridan. In J. Gracia & T. Noone (Eds.), A companion to philosophy in the middle ages (pp. 340–348). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Klima, G. (2008). The medieval problem of universals. In EN Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/universals-medieval/.
  10. Klima, G. (2009). William Ockham. In G. Oppy & N. Trakakis (Eds.), History of western philosophy of religion (pp. 195–208). Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
  11. Marmo, C. (1999). The semantics of the Modistae. In Ebbesen, S., & Friedman, R. L. (Eds.), Medieval analyses in language and cognition, acts of the symposium. The Copenhagen school of medieval philosophy, 10–13 January 1996, Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
  12. McMahon, W. (2002). The medieval Sufficientiae: Attempts at a definitive division of the categories. Proceedings of the Society for Medieval Logic and Metaphysics, 2, 12–25.Google Scholar
  13. Nuchelmans, G. (1973). Theories of the proposition: Ancient and medieval conceptions of the bearers of truth and falsity. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  14. Nuchelmans, G. (1980). Late-scholastic and humanist theories of the proposition. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  15. Spade, P. V. (1994). Five texts on the mediaeval problem of universals: Porphyry, Boethius, Abelard, Duns Scotus, Ockham. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyFordham UniversityNew YorkUSA