The School of Heretics: Academic Condemnation at the University of Oxford, 1277-1409 by Andrew E. Larsen (review)

Andrew E. Larsen's study is an excellent historical and doctrinal analysis of accusations of heresy leveled against various academicians related to the University of Oxford during the period in question. The author has carefully designated the parameters of his study so as to limit its scope and purview.

Regarding heresy and heretics, there was a prevailing distinction among falsity, error, and heresy alluded to by Henry of Ghent in his Quodlibet X, q. 5 (Leuven, 1981, p. 12). Likewise, suspects were to be given three warnings before being brought to inquisitorial proceedings (p. 151), a rule to be found "somewhere" in canon law. The author, understandably, struggles a bit with how to translate the Latin fama, deciding on "rumor" (p. 15); "repute," "reputation," as-widely-viewed might be alternatives but hardly more satisfying.

References to the Lollards occur periodically in Larsen's work. In addition to the individuals considered to be Lollards mentioned in the index, it would have been helpful for those unfamiliar with this period of history to learn what ideas or views earned them the label.

With respect to the controversy regarding the plurality/unicity of forms (pp. 27-29, 46), there was a refinement that seems to have escaped the purview of the author—namely, the opinion that there were multiple grades of a single form. Whether this opinion can initially be traced to John Pecham, we may never know, since his treatise De gradibus formarum (once housed in the Merton library) is now lost. Positing grades of a single form responds to St. Thomas Aquinas's argument that a plurality of forms leads to a sort of metaphysical "schizoid" in any given individual being. The grades theory was subsequently supported by Roger Marston and opposed by Giles of Rome in his Contra gradus formarum (Venice, 1500).

Regarding the career of Blessed John Duns Scotus (pp. 64-65), details may be found in William A. Frank and Allan B. Wolter's volume on Duns Scotus Metaphysician (West Lafayette, IN, 1995) as well as in Antonie Vos's monumental treatment in The Philosophy of John Duns Scotus (Edinburgh, 2006). Regarding the allusion to Walter Chatton's view that the "brouhaha" about the various signa originis in the divinity had come to be considered frivolous on both sides of the channel, this can now be found in the critical edition (Toronto, 2002).

Allusion is made to Ockham's treatises on the Eucharist (p. 77). These have been edited in the critical edition by Carl A. Grassi, Tractatus de Quantitate and Tractatus de corpore Christi (St. Bonaventure, NY, 1986).

Regarding the summoning of Ockham to a provincial chapter of the Franciscans in 1323 and subsequent events, it should be noted that Ockham actually went to great lengths to explain his views during his stay in Avignon. His two final Quodlibets were debated during his sojourn there in 1324-28. His opening salvo in the first question of Quodlibet VI is an explanatory lecture to the papal examiners who had stated that his argument was equally faulty with or without the qualification of God's potentia absoluta. Larsen refers to the distinction between God's potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata (pp. 65, 69, 75); some further explanation about the distinction may be useful here. As Gedeon Gal once remarked, God never did anything by his absolute power; everything he does is orderly. This reviewer believes the potentia absoluta is best put into the logical category of a hypothetical counterfactual. The usual wording of "God can do everything which does not involve a contradiction" was further refined by the unknown author of the Ockhamist work De principiis theologiae, where it is stated,"God can do everything whose coming to be does not involve a contradiction," inserted to exclude God's making God who...