Professor Hutchings’ discussion of my views on the ontology of works of art pushes my argument further and clarifies some of the issues by relating them to scholastic ontology, both in traditional and in recent formulations. However, Hutchings misconstrues my argument in two important respects: he attributes to me a narrower view of ‘analogical method’ and of the term ‘equivocal’ than I actually hold and so consequently misses the sense in which the ‘ontological commitment’ the critic according to me will (...) be presupposed in aesthetic discussions. Since the clarification of these disagreements will throw light on the ontology of art, I should like to summarize Hutchings’ critical remarks relevant to points and and then briefly indicate my answers to these criticisms and their relevance to aesthetic theory. (shrink)