No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2016
In the autumn of 1363 Wyclif returned to Oxford to take lodgings at Queen’s College and begin his formal training in theology. The Oxford of that day was supposedly dominated by the nominalistic philosophy and theology of Ockham and of his disciples, although not exclusively so. After a period of initial and vehement opposition to Ockham in the 1320s, it has been assumed that Ockham’s thought attracted a group of fervent disciples and influenced many others. The principal Ockhamists of the next generation, or what is sometimes called ‘the English school of nominalism,’ are identified in almost any textbook of medieval philosophy as being Robert Holcot and Adam Wodeham. On occasion other names are added: William Crathorn, Thomas Buckingham, William Heytesbury, and John Dumbleton. The areas of discipleship vary, but those most frequently mentioned are: a nominalistic metaphysics, an epistemology of intuitive cognition, a terminist logic, a nominalistic physics, and a semi-Pelagian soteriology. Although an actual head-count is rarely provided, it is taken for granted that by 1335 many Oxford authors were sympathetic to Ockham and that Ockhamist teaching was not effectively displaced by the countervoices of Fitzralph and Bradwardine, a situation that lasted until Wyclif’s campaign against Ockham and the ‘doctors of signs’.
1 Leff, G., Bradwardine and the Pelagians (Cambridge 1957)Google Scholar; Robson, J. A., Wyclif and the Oxford Schools (Cambridge 1961).Google Scholar
2 Boehner, Ph., introduction to William of Ockham, Philosophical Writings: A Selection (New York 1964)Google Scholar p. li.
3 Moody, E. A., ‘Ockham, Buridan, and Nicholas of Aurrėcourt’, in Studies in Medieval Philosophy, Science, and Logic: Collected Papers, 1933-1969 (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1975) p. 160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Wodeham, Lect. Oxon. I, d. 1, q. 2 (Vat lat. 95s fol. 23r ‘et adhuc est aliquorum modernorum, Chatton scilicet et eius sequacium…’; Lect. Oxon. IV, q.5 (Vat lat. 1110 fol. 114v) ‘Si autem tu, Chatton, cum sequentibus tuis ponderem…’
5 Ockham, , De sacramento altaris, ed. Birch, T. B. (Burlington, Iowa 1930) p. 116 ‘stimulante invidia’Google Scholar; p. 154 ‘maliciose proponunt’; p. 210 ‘propter calumniam praesens negotium suscepi’; p. 354 ‘maliciose calumniarle’.
6 For the biographical details on Reading, see Emden (O) p. 1554. On his thought and relationship to Ockham, see Longpré, E., ‘Jean de Reading et le Bx. Jean Duns Scot’, La France franciscaine, 7 (1924) pp. 99–109Google Scholar; Brown, S., ‘Sources for Ockham’s Prologue to the Sentences ’, Franc. Stud. 26 (1966) pp. 36–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Gál, G., ‘Quaestio Ioannis de Reading de neces sitate specierum intelligibilium, defensio doctrinae Scoti’, Franc. Stud. 29 (1969) pp. 66–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brown, S. and Gál, G., introduction to William of Ockham, Scriptum in librum primum sententiarum ordinano, Opera Theologica, 8 vols. (St. Bonaventura 1970) I pp. 18 *–34 *.Google Scholar
7 Hoffmann, Fritz, Die Schriften des Oxforder Kanzlers Johannes Lutterell Erfurter Theologische Srudien 6 (Leipzig 1959)Google Scholar; Koch, Josef, ‘Neue Aktenstücke zu dem gegen Wilhelm Ockham in Avignon geführten Prozess’, in Kieine Schriften 2 vols (Rome, 1973) II pp. 275–365.Google Scholar
8 Baudry, Leon, ‘Gautier de Chatton et son commentaire des sentences’, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 14 (1943-5) pp. 337–69Google Scholar; Brampton, C. K., ‘Gautier de Chatton et la provenance des mss. lat. Paris Bibl. Nat. 15886 et 15887’, EF 14 (1964) pp. 200–5Google Scholar; Gál, Gedeon, ‘Gaulteri de Chatton et Guillelmi de Ockham Controversia de Natura Conceptus Universalis’, Franc. Stud. 27 (1967) pp. 191–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fitzpatrick, Noel, ‘Walter Chatton on the Univociry of Being: A Reaction to Peter Aureol and William Ockham’, Franc. Stud. 31 (1971) pp. 88–177Google Scholar; Gál, G., in the introduction to William of Ockham, Summa logicae (St. Bonaventure, 1974), pp. 47 *–56 *Google Scholar; Etzkorn, Girard, ‘Codex latinus Monacensis 8943: Mediaeval Potpourri, Contemporary Consternation’, in Studies Honoring Ignatius Charles Brady, Friar Minor, ed. Almagno, R. S., Harkins, C. L. (St. Bonaventure 1976) pp. 247–68Google Scholar; Etzkorn, , ‘Walter Chatton and the Controversy on the Absolute Necessity of Grace’, Franc. Stud. 37 (1977) pp. 32–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 The Logica contra Ockham has been critically edited by Edward A. Synan, The Works of Richard of Campsall 2 vols (Toronto 1968-82) II pp. 51-444; see remarks of Gál in introduction to Ockham, Summa logicae, pp. 56*-62*.
10 Weisheipl, James A., ‘Ockham and Some Mertonians’, Mediaeval Studies 30 (1968) pp. 174–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brown, Stephen F., ‘Walter Burleigh’s Treatise De suppositionibus and its Influence on William of Ockham’, Franc. Stud. 10 (1972) pp. 15–64.Google Scholar
11 Burleigh, Walter, De Puntate Artis Logicae Tractatus Longior, ed. Boehner, Ph. (St. Bonaventura 1955)Google Scholar; Brown, ‘Walter Burleigh’s Treatise’.
12 Baudry, L., ‘Gautier de Chatton’ pp. 355–6.Google Scholar
13 G. Gál, ‘Gaulteri de Chatton’.
14 Emden (O) 814. The only known manuscript of Graystanes’s Sentences commentary is London Westminster Abbey MS 13.
15 Knowles, RO II pp. 268.
16 Emden (O) 814.
17 There is the possibility that Graystanes does cite Rodington, but the truth of the matter has not yet been established. On p. 514, both in text and in margin, Graystanes refers to Redyngton on the issue of hypostatic union, which may be Reading or Rodington.
18 Leland, John, De rebus britannicis collectanea 6 vols. (London 1774) IV p. 59.Google Scholar
19 Biographical sketches on these authors are provided in Emden (O). In addition, on Walsingham see Xiberta, B. M., De Scriptoribus scholasticis saec. XIV ex ordine Carmelitarum (Louvain 1931) pp. 111–36Google Scholar; on Kykeley and Ely see Little, A. G. and Pelster, F., Oxford Theology and Theologians cji.D. 1282-1302 (Oxford 1934)Google Scholar. Graystanes’s citations of Kykeley, along with Kykeley’s citations of Henry of Ghent and ‘Brother’ Thomas, narrows the terminal dates for Kykeley’s scholastic activity to 1300-22. His close association with Harclay in Graystanes and in the only manuscript of his Quodlibeta, Worcester Cath MS F 3, would suggest the period 1305-15. At the opening of his article, ‘Henricus de Harclay: Quaestio de significato conceptus universalis (Fons Doctrinae Guillelmi de Ockham)’, Franc. Stud., 31 1971) pp. 178-234, G. Gál reviews the state of research on Harclay. On Campsale see Synan, E. A., The Works of Richard Campsall 2 vols. (Toronto 1968-82).Google Scholar
20 London West. Abbey MS 13 pp. 1-8, 120-2, 265, 488.
21 Ibid., pp. 218, 233.
22 Ibid., pp. 27-30.
23 Ibid., pp. 265, 273.
24 Ibid., pp. 511, 568.
25 Ibid., pp. 171, to be inserted on p. 167 ‘Opinio Petri de Aureolis est quod fruitio hominis de Deo est tantum delectatio.’ Ibid., p. 167 ‘De primo ergo articulo teneo quod operario (voluntatis sive fruitionis) et delectatio distinguuntur realiter.’
26 Ibid., p. 158: ‘Quod aliquid a Deo potest esse obiectum fruitionis inordinate.’
27 Tweedale, M., ‘John of Rodynton on Knowledge, Science, and Theology’, doctoral dissertation, UCLA (Los Angeles 1965)Google Scholar; Leff, G., Richard Fitzralph. Commentator of the ‘Sentences’ Manchester 1963)Google Scholar; Walsh, K., A Fourteenth-Century Scholar and Primate: Richard Fitzralph in Oxford, Avignon and Armagh (Oxford 1981).Google Scholar
28 Smalley, B., ‘Robert Holcot, OP’, AFP 26 (1956) pp. 5–97Google Scholar; Smalley, , English Friars and Antiquity in the Early Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1960) pp. 133–202Google Scholar; Oberman, H. A., ‘Facientibus quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam. Robert Holcot, O.P., and the Beginnings of Luther’s Theology’, HTR 55 (1962) pp. 317–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hoffmann, F., ‘Robert Holcot: Die Logik in der Theologie’, in Die Metaphysik im Mittelalter, Miscellanea Mediaevalia 2 (Berlin 1963) pp. 624–39Google Scholar; Hoffmann, , Die theologische Methode des Oxforder Dominikanerlehrers Robert Holcot, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, new ser. 5 (Münster 1972)Google Scholar; Moody, , ‘A Quodlibetal Question of Robert Holkot, O.P. on the Problem of the Objects of Knowledge and of Belief’, Speculum 39 (1964) pp. 53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schepers, H., ‘Holkot contra dicta Crathorn’, Philosophisches Jahrbuch 77 (1970) pp. 320–54Google Scholar; 79 (1972) pp. 106-36.
29 Moody, , ‘Quodlibetal Question’, pp. 54–5, 65–7.Google Scholar
30 Schepers, ‘Holkot contra dicta Crathorn’.
31 Courtenay, , Adam Wodeham (Leiden 1978) pp. 95–109.Google Scholar
32 Schepers admits as much, ‘Holkot contra dicta Crathorn’, pp. 340-54.
33 See the forthcoming paper by H. Gelber, ‘Finding Faces for Dominicans: Theology at Blackfriars in the Time of William of Ockham’.
34 John Grafton, Quaest. quodl. Vienna Bibl. Nat. Oster Pal. Lat. 5460 fols. 32ra-40rb.
35 Courtenay, , ‘Adam Wodeham pp. 95–109.Google Scholar
36 Tachau, K., ‘The Problem of the Species in medio at Oxford in the Generation after Ockham’, Mediaeval Studies 44 (1982) pp. 394–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tachau, , ‘Vision and Certitude in the Age of Ockham’, doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Wisconsin (Madison 1981).Google Scholar
37 Holcot, Sent. I, q. 3 (4 in printed ed.), a. 2: ‘Utrum sit aliquis actus medius qui nee sit frui nec uri.’ ‘Omnis amor sit fruitio vel usus… Et quando arguitur quod aliquid diiigitur propter se et tamen non ut ultimus finis nec edam refertur ad aliud actualiter, concedo, et dico quod talis dilectio est usus, quando res diligitur propter aliud habitualiter.’
38 Moody, ‘Quodlibetal Question’.
39 Ibid.
40 Courtenay, , ‘The Dialectic of Omnipotence in the High and Late Middle Ages’, in Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy, ed. Rudavsky, T. (Dordrecht 1984) pp. 243–69.Google Scholar
41 Courtenay, Adam Wodeham 95-109; Oberman, ‘Facientibus quod in se est’.
42 Wodeham, Lectura Oxon., I, d. 17, q. 5 (Vat. MS lat. 955 fol. 161v), with marginal note in parenthesis: ‘Ad 14m responder Ockham (manu sua in margine reportationis meae [of Chatton’s lectures]) quod ille [Chatton] male intellexit articulum. …’ The reference is to Chatton’s Reportatio. For the relationship of Ockham and Wodeham, see Ockham, , Stimma logicae, ed. Boehner, Ph., Gál, G., and Brown, S. (St.Bonaventure 1974), pp. 47 *–56 *Google Scholar; Courtenay, W.J., Adam Wodeham pp. 63–4, 160–4.Google Scholar
43 Ockham, Stimma logicae pp. 3*-44*.
44 Courtenay, Adam Wodeham pp. 63-4.
45 See Ockham, Summa logicae pp. 47*-56*.
46 Chatton, Reportatio I, d. 30, q. 2 (Paris Bibl. Nat. MS lat. 15887 fol. 65ra).
47 Wodeham, Lectura Oxon. I, d. 17, q. 5 (Vat. MS lat. 955, fol. 65ra). Tractatus de indivisibilibus (Florence Bibl. Naz. MS conv. sopp. A.3.508 fol. 140ra).
48 The Lectura secunda (Cambridge, Gonville & Caius MS 281) combines questions from the prologue to his London lectures, revised questions from his Oxford lectures, and new questions that do not appear to be derived from his Norwich, London, or Oxford lectures. The presence of the revised questions requires that the Lectura secunda be dated after the Oxford lectures, probably after 1334, which is the terminus post quem for the second redaction of the Oxford lectures.
49 In his Tractatus de indivisibilibus (Florence Bibl. Naz. conv. sopp. A.3.508 fol. 140ra), written after 1324 (since he cites Ockham’s Logica and Tractatus) Wodeham remarked that he had put forward the arguments contained in Ockham’s treatment of indivisibles before Ockham had written on the subject (meaning the treatise Wodeham knew as Tractatus de sacramento eucharistiae): ‘Quaere prosecutionem in ilio tractatu. Et haec argumenta fere omnia fuerant tua antequam Ockham aliquid scriberet de indivisibilibus.’
50 Wodeham, Lectura Oxon. IV, q. 5 (Paris Univ. MS lat. 193 fol. 217rb-217va, as edited from other manuscripts): ‘Nolo tamen dicere quod quanti tas sit res alia a substantia et qualitate, et eriam a parribus earundem. Immo, quantitas continua est ipsae partes conrinuae in toto, et istae eaedem partes, si disconrinuentur, sint quantitas discreta; et hanc viam de parribus et non de toto teneo turn quia reputo eam rationabiliorem rum etiam propter calumniam vitandam multorum dampnantium quantitatem esse substanciam vel qualitatem.’ Ibid., a. 5 (fol. 220ra): ‘Sed istis non obstantibus, teneo idem quod prius, scilicet quod quantitas non est res disrincta a pardbus substannae et qualitatis, quia nihil potest esse quantum sine quantitate.’ Ibid., a. 1 (fol. 217va): ‘Ad primam rationem dico quod quantitas intrinseca motus non est res alia a motu et parribus eius.’ ‘Ad probationem dicendum quod per se loquendo terminus motus augmenti est res permanens et non successiva, et ideo non est per se loquendo nec simpliciter loquendo quanticas intrinseca motus, et haec loquendo de ultimo termino motus augmenti.’
51 Wodeham, Lectura Oxon. I, d. 33, q. 2 (Vat. lat. 955 fol. 186’; Paris Mazarine MS 915 fols. 109ra-109rb). See Gelber, Hester, ‘Logic and die Trinity: A Clash of Values in Scholastic Thought, 1300-1335’, doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Wisconsin (Madison 1974) pp. 252–3.Google Scholar
52 Ockham, De corpore Christi; De sacramento eucharistiae; Wodeham, Tractatus de indivisibilibus (Florence Bibl. Naz. MS conv. sopp. A3.508 fol. 135r-147r);J. E. Murdoch & Synan, E. A., ‘Two Quesrions on the Continuum: Walter Chatton (?), O.F.M. and Adam Wodeham, O.F.M.’, Franc. Stud. 26 (1966) pp. 212–88.Google Scholar
53 Wodeham, Lectura Oxon. I. d. 17, qq. 1-3; W. Dettloff, Die Entwicklung der Akzeptations- und Verdienstiehre von Duns Scotus bis Luther, Beirräge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, 40.2 (Münster i.W. 1963) pp. 329-32.
54 Gál, G., ‘Adam of Wodeham’s Question on the “Complexe significabile” as the Immediate Object of Scientific Knowledge’, Franc. Stud. 37 (1977) pp. 66–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55 Tachau, ‘The Problem of the Species in medio’.
56 Gelber, , ‘Logic and the Trinity’ pp. 235–64, 629–48.Google Scholar
57 Ockham discussed this issue in his Quodlibela septem, quodl. II, q. 11, but his most direct statement occurs in quodl. IV, q. 14, ed.J. C. Wey (St. Bonaventure, N.Y., 1980) p. 369; ‘anima intellectiva, sensitiva et forma corporeitatis distinguuntur realiter, et ideo potentiae illarum formaram distinguuntur realiter.’ Wodeham, Lectura secunda, Prol., q. 1 (Cambridge Gonville & Caius MS 281 fol. 106ra) ‘in homine sit tantum unica anima’. For the full text, see Tachau, ‘Problem of Species’.
58 Modern commentators have sometimes confused scholastic discussions of the powers (or faculties) of the soul (i.e. intellectus and voluntas) with discussions of the acts of those powers (e.g. cognitio, volitio); thus Leff, Richard Fitzralph p. 97. Both Ockham and Wodeham (against Fitzralph) affirmed that intellect and will are one power or faculty, identical with the soul itself, although cognitive and volitional acts are for the most part distinct from one another and from the soul itself. Ockham, Ordinano, d. 1, q. 2 OTh 1 p. 396): ‘intellectus et voluntas sunt omnino idem… Et ita fruitio est in intellectu et est actus intellectus ex quo est actus voluntatis. Sed intendo dicere quod fruitio non est intelligere nec scire et sic de aliis actibus qui dicuntur actus quocumque modo cognitivi. Et isto modo, conformando me modo loquendi aliorum, intelligo quando dico fruitionem esse actum non intellectus sed voluntatis. …’ Ockham, Reportatio II, q. 20 (OTh p. 435): ‘potentiae animae …, scilicet intellectus et voluntas—non loquendo de potentiis sensitivis nunc … —sunt idem realiter inter se et cum essentia animae… licet eadem sit substantia numero quae potest intelligere et velie, tamen intelligere et velie sunt actus distincti realiter.’ In his London lectures, portions of which are preserved in the prologue to his Lectura secunda, Wodeham argued against any distinction between the soul and its powers; Cambr. Gonville & Caius 281 fol. 106ra ‘potentiae animae, etsi non sint distinctae res nee inter se nec ab anima, tamen sunt distinctae realitates eiusdem rei simplicis, sic quod licet sint idem realiter, distinguuntur tamen aliquo modo a parte rei.’ Here Wodeham uses Scorns, not Ockham, as his source. In his Oxford lectures Wodeham maintained that cognition and volition are separate things (res distinctae) from the soul itself. Consequendy love (both amor and dilectio) as well as enjoyment (fruitio) are res distinctae. See Wodeham, , Lectura Oxon. IGoogle Scholar, d. 1, q. 2, a. 2 (Paris Univ. MS 193 fol. 16vb) ‘Sed istis non obstantibus, teneo partem oppositam, quod fruitio est res distincta ab anima.’ Lectura Oxon. I, d. 1, q. 2, a. 1 (Paris Univ. MS 193 fol. 16rb)’Non minus est amor res distincta ab animaquam ipsa cognitio. Sed cognitio est res distincta; ergo, etc’ The questions on the relation of the soul to its faculties and acts were revised and expanded by Wodeham in the second redaction of his Oxford lectures, and that revised form is preserved in the second redaction as well as in the Caius manuscript (Lectura secunda). Cf. Vat. lat. 955 fol. 21r, later addition in brackets ‘Nee in via nee in patria est anima fruido [sua, sed tarn amor viae quam patriae est qualitas recepta in anima vel angelo cum quia in via amor libere elicitur] ab anima. Item, quia non minus est amor res distincta ab anima quam ipsa cognitio. Sed cognitio est res distincta.’ In changing the subsequent passage in a. 2 to read ‘Sed non obstantibus istis teneo quod amor et cognitio sunt vere accidentia recepta in anima, licet hoc efficaciter probari sit difficile’, he marked through the earlier passage, noting in the margin Vacat, quamvis bene’. I am grateful to Stephen McGrade for calling to my attention the confusion on this issue and the passages in Ockham.
59 Lectura Oxon., I, d. 1, q. 4, a. 2 (Vat. MS lat. 955 fol. 27’) ‘Istis non obstantibus, teneo quod fruirio beatifica est realiter delectatio.’
60 Much remains to be done on these authors. On the relation of Halifax and Rosetus to Ockham, see: Courtenay, , Adam Wodeham pp. 118–21Google Scholar; Tachau, , ‘Problem of the Species in medio ’ pp. 432–9.Google Scholar
61 Robson, J. A., Wyclif and the Oxford Schools (Cambridge, 1961), p. 32.Google Scholar
62 J. A. Weisheipl, ‘Ockham and Some Mertonians’; Weisheipl, , ‘Ockham and the Mertonians’, in The History of the University of Oxford, Vol. IGoogle Scholar: The Early Oxford Schools, ed. J. I. Catto (Oxford 1984) pp. 607-58.
63 Weisheipl, , ‘Repertorium Mertonense’, Mediaeval Studies, 31 (1969) p. 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64 Kaluza, Z., ‘L’Oeuvre theologique de Nicolas Aston’, Archives d’Histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 45 (1978) pp. 45–82Google Scholar; Bender, Joel, ‘Nicholas Aston: A Study in Oxford Thought after the Black Death’, doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Wisc. (Madison 1979).Google Scholar