The aim of Scholastica colonialis is not only to present the proceedings of the fourth International Conference of Medieval Philosophy, held in Porto Alegre (Brazil) on 12–14 November 2012, at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. It is also the first outcome of an ambitious and long-term research project bearing the full title “Scholastica colonialis: Reception and Development of Baroque Scholasticism in Latin America in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries.” This twofold purpose explains why the introduction, signed by both the editors of the volume, is a reproduction of two texts already printed in the Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 52 (2010): 25–42 and 54 (2012): 21–42. Here, the concept of colonialis is explained in detail: Latin America stretches from the “Mexican frontier with the United States to the southernmost regions of the continent, including Spanish-speaking Caribbean countries” (2) and Portuguese-speaking Brazil. Curiously enough, questions of historical geography are not mentioned. Why regions such as California, Florida, or New Mexico first colonized by the Spanish have been omitted in this project remains undiscussed. Even more baffling is the lack of clarification of the term scholastica and the uncommented use of the antique terms “Baroque Scholasticism” as well as “Second Scholasticism.” The editors necessarily quote Thomas Aquinas and the philosophical thought associated with Coimbra, Évora, Salamanca, and Alcalá de Henares as the unique links to the “ideal of a reformation internal to the Catholic church and in opposition to the Protestant movements” (3). They acknowledge that new answers were needed in anthropology and law to address, found, and anchor the Spanish conquista. They strongly build their research on W. B. Redmond's Bibliography of the Philosophy in the Iberian Colonies of America (1972), but prefer to extend it to juridical, political, and linguistic studies, in order to come closer to Redmond's dream of a “Gutenberg Project” (11) of Latin American philosophical source texts. This widening of the realm is certainly necessary and commendable to the project but requires more differentiation and systematization within the different areas of thought. The proceedings of this conference thus mirror the incongruity of the project at this early stage.

The essays are not systematically ordered and some cover a patchwork of problems with no direct link to Latin American philosophy, as could be verified from the editors’ page. Moreover, they indifferently treat topics such as metaphysics, cosmography, theology, economics, law, politics, and rhetoric. On the other hand, they also discuss the formation of the Jesuit order in Europe and Latin America. For reasons of space, I can only deal with a few contributions.

The first contribution, by J. Ramiro Podetti on Alonso Veracruz's De Dominio Infidelio et Iusto Bello, shows that Veracruz thought the natives to be able to live politically and discusses the implications this view had on the possibility for them to form republics. Alfredo Santiago Culleton discusses the notion of just price in Tomás de Mercado and Juan de Lugo and comes to the conclusion that this notion is the result of a balance between economic reality and political morality. L. E. Bacigalupo analyzes the fundamental role of Ciceronian rhetoric in the educational program of the Jesuits and casuistry, founding his analysis on the notion of probability. L. E. Hinrichsen focuses on Viera's Sexagesima sermon as his contribution to homiletics itself, asserting that the acceptance of the Gospel on the side of the listener finally remains an act of grace. É. V. B. Reis gives us the historical context and background of Viera's education, the importance of the Jesuit ratio studiorum, and its condensation in his Sermon on Ash Wednesday and Sermon of Saint Augustine. L. F. M. Rodrigues's article illustrates how the imprisoned Jesuits of São Julião da Barra continued their education as a “Resistance process” by “founding” a “subterranean university” and how they used their traditional comments from Coimbra as inspiration. The contribution by R. J. Katayama Omura shows how the need of navigation techniques forced the viceroyalty of Peru to create the position of Chief Cosmographer of the Kingdom in the seventeenth century and describes the relation to the same position in Sevilla.

I regret the editors’ choice to present the contributions without a systematic order, although I do understand that this is the first outcome of a new project that should be greatly encouraged.