The year 2025 is likely to mark a turning point in the study of Honorius Augustodunensis, a prolific twelfth-century writer whose success among medieval audiences has so far stood in contrast to the attitude he has encountered in much of modern scholarship. With three major publications appearing up to this year,¹ there is hope that the author is finally beginning to receive the attention he deserves.

Among these publications, the volume edited by Isabelle Mandrella plays a special role. It presents the contributions delivered at the event that inaugurated this rehabilitation.²

The volume comprises an introduction and nine articles covering three major topics: Honorius’ theology and thought, the intellectual and literary influences discernible in his work, and the fundamental problem of the manuscript transmission of his writings.

The underlying ambition of the volume, shared by all the chapters, is concisely formulated in the introduction: to reposition Honorius as a major figure in early scholasticism, since the success and influence of his works constitute a significant phenomenon in their own right. A greater appreciation of Honorius’ capacity to act as an intellectual mediator, and to achieve pedagogical clarity in presenting and systematising complex material, would be more in line with how this author was perceived by his medieval readership.

Marc-Aeilko Aris examines the well-known phrase non spernenda opuscula edidit in the allegedly autobiographical notice concluding the De luminaribus ecclesiae and suggests a revisionist interpretation of the expression not as a conventional expression of humility by a claim to doctrinal orthodoxy and place in the tradition.

Ezequiel Ludueña’s article shows Honorius at work by examining how John Scotus Eriugena’s Periphyseon is rendered in the Clavis physicae. Focusing on the relationship between ratio and auctoritas, Ludueña demonstrates that Honorius preserves his predecessor’s central idea concerning the harmony between them. Honorius’ interventions largely consist in eliminating repetitions and reducing quotations from the Pseudo-Dionysian corpus. It would therefore be unjust to accuse him of flattening the nuance of Eriugena’s argument; rather, he produced a more linear and clear presentation in order to make that complex argument more accessible.

Isabelle Mandrella addresses one of the most striking problems in Honorius’ oeuvre: the two substantially different versions of his treatise on free will and predestination, the Inevitabile. She argues that the first recension, defining free will as libertas bonum vel malum eligendi, better fits the title and offers a more coherent account of the problem. This coherence is strained in the later version, where Honorius adopts the Anselmian definition of freedom as the capacity to preserve moral rectitude. For Mandrella, this paradoxical revision nevertheless reveals Honorius’ intellectual independence and serious engagement with the question.

Two contributions explore Honorian anthropology. Bernd Goebel traces, in the Christian tradition and in Honorius, the question of whether humanity was created for its own sake or merely as a substitute for the fallen angels. As Goebel shows, Honorius rejects a purely substitutional anthropology: while acknowledging the link between human salvation and the fall of the angels, he grounds humanity’s own value and finality in the Incarnation.

The question cur homo? is also central to Andrea Scalia’s paper. Primarily through the detailed analysis of the Liber duodecim quaestionum and the Libellus octo quaestionum, Scalia demonstrates that Honorius’ anthropology is inseparable from his Christology: humanity is defined by its orientation toward Christ – a position that Scalia situates within Eriugenian ideas on the cosmic significance of the Incarnation and the unity of creation with the Creator.

Regina Meyer investigates Honorius’ method by comparing his exegesis of the Song of Songs with Rupert of Deutz’s exposition. Although both authors share a common exegetical tradition and often address similar themes, their interpretations differ markedly in method, structure, and focus. Rupert offers a more expansive, historically and theologically differentiated commentary, while Honorius favours concise, pedagogically oriented interpretation and allegorical synthesis.

Marco Rainini likewise examines Honorius’ commentary on the Song of Songs from the perspective of the theology of history and eschatology. He shows how Honorius uses traditional periodisation together with innovative symbolic structures to interpret history through Scripture, especially through the motif of four brides whose »weddings« mark successive historical phases. Within this scheme, the converted Synagogue plays a striking role: at the end of time, it returns to the Church and fights with it against the Antichrist. Rainini presents this as a remarkable revaluation of the Jews, traces its sources, and tentatively relates it to Christian-Jewish contacts with rabbinic schools in the Rhine and Danube regions.

The article of Paul Hellmeier delves into Honorius’ role of mediator focusing on the role of the Clavis physicae in reception of Proclean Neoplatonism by Berthold of Moosburg. Hellmeier shows that Berthold’s interpretation of Proclus’ doctrine of the »vehicle of the soul« was largely enabled by Honorius, who made it usable in Christian context but did not eliminate all the contradictions.

The contribution by Katharina Kaska and Christoph Egger addresses the notorious problem of the manuscript transmission of Honorius’ works. Unlike much previous research, however, it does not seek to identify a single centre with an exclusive role in this process, but rather traces the main features of a transmission that, at least in Austria, emerges from overlapping, mobile, and partly fragmentary networks. Navigating this complex material requires the combined use of library history, palaeography, codicology, and textual criticism.

The volume deserves praise for presenting Honorius in a new light and for inviting scholars to leave behind the condescending labels of the past in order to pursue further investigation of his fascinating corpus. The impressive panorama offered by the collection is rich in new insights into significant aspects of Honorius’ work and intellectual background, especially his relationship with John Scotus Eriugena. One can only hope that the interest sparked by this publication, and the spirit it instils, will lead to further breakthroughs in our understanding of this compelling author, not least by inspiring the publication of reliable critical editions, on which the interpretation of Honorian corpus depends.