The name of William of Ware, doctor fundatus, has long been known in the Franciscan school as a figure associated with the academic formation of John Duns Scotus, the doctor subtilis. His relationship with Scotus has intrigued scholars, some of whom dubbed him the magister Scoti. Scotus expressly cited William in his Collationes Oxonienses. William’s writings were well known in both Oxford and Paris. Copies of his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard abounded. Peter of Candia (the future Alexander V) cited him three times c. 1378–80. Manuscripts containing William’s writings are scattered throughout western Europe, despite originating in a time when many English friars were not well known beyond Dover. The majority of manuscripts are in Italy, and only two of them are in English libraries (Oxford, Merton College Library, MSS 103 and 104).

This admirable volume, the first dedicated to William, originated in an international conference entitled ‘William of Ware: teaching philosophy and theology in the 13th century between Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus’ (Rome, 29–30 April 2021, organised by the Pontifical University Antonianum and the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross). Costante Marabelli listed forty-eight manuscripts of William’s Commentary on the Sentences with abbreviations; there are approximately fifty copies of the Commentary. This volume includes nineteen quaestiones previously unpublished; some working editions are also added. There is a fine introduction and fifteen contributions to the collection. While the majority of the papers appear in English, there is one in Italian and another in French. Eight of the contributions come with an appendix centred on editions of William’s writings.

William Short (‘William of Ware in the Quaracchi Archives’) traces the research on William at the Quaracchi Archives close to Florence; the College then moved to Grottaferrata and is now at San Isidoro in Rome, the home of the College of St Bonaventure. Short notes that, in the twentieth century, the members of the College had taken a great deal of interest in William’s writings. At different stages there had been plans to publish editions of his writings. During the twentieth century the editors purchased a large number of photographs and microfilms with a view to establishing a critical edition of his writings. A list of key manuscripts was identified at the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Florence, the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana and Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale. The earliest Quaracchi edition of the writings of William was published in 1904 for the fiftieth anniversary of the promulgation of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. The volume is entitled Fr. Gulielmi Guarre, fr. Ioannis Duns Scoti, fr. Petri Aureoli. Quaestiones disputatae de immaculata conceptione beatae Mariae Virgins. The archive possesses a typescript of William’s transcription of the Santa Croce manuscript in Florence. The 1920s saw a flurry of activity, with plans for critical editions which ultimately came to nothing. Short produces a roll call of the scholars who were instrumental in stimulating research on William.

Costante Marabelli (‘William of Ware: his life, works, and the manuscript tradition of his Commentary on the Sentences’) is perhaps a little hasty in maintaining that William hailed from Ware, Hertfordshire, without any reference to the complexities of toponymics (pp. 57–8). William’s chronology and the transmission of his writings call for new interpretations which go beyond traditional explanations. He cited Richard of Mediavilla, Henry of Ghent and the Quodlibeta of Giles of Rome in his Parisian lectures. An analysis of the edited texts established a terminus a quo at around 1293. The terminus ad quem can perhaps be identified as coinciding with the refutation of William’s opinion regarding theology as a contemplative science, as expressed in Scotus’ Ordinatio. Recent research on the Franciscan school at Oxford has repositioned William, who was a contemporary of his confrères John of Berwick, John Basset (Bassat), Thomas Rundel (Rondel), Philip of Bridlington, Peter Baldeswell, Martin of Alnwick and Robert of Beverley. The hypothesis that William later lectured on the Sentences at Paris is less secure. Two names expressly cited in the text are Peter Baldeswell and Thomas Rundel (p. 156, no. 80). Elsewhere, Rundel is named on his own (p. 160, no. 97). The first part of the prologue cannot be dated before 1299, as there is mention of the victory of the Mongol Ghāzān on 23 December 1299; thus, the prologue may have been written in 1300 or shortly afterwards. William’s Commentary on the Sentences carried a reference to the pilgrimage to Rome for the jubilee year, with the inference that William became a pilgrim to the eternal city in that year. His work was available in Oxford c. 1300, when a Benedictine, Thomas Westoe, purchased a copy of his writings. Recent research indicates that William’s Commentary was preserved in a reportatio, which was neither written nor revised by the author. Finally, there is no evidence that William taught Scotus formally at Oxford. It seems that the only supervisory role exercised by William over Scotus was that of an older inceptor.

Francesco Fiorentino’s ‘The immaculate conception and Incarnation according to William of Ware’ traces the theology of the first feast through Eadmer of Canterbury’s Tractatus de conceptione beatae Mariae Virginis. Fiorentino notes that the monk of Christ Church cathedral priory in Canterbury seems to have been the first to defend the feast against Norman critics, who doubted its theological basis. Anselm, bishop of London (1136–50), had recommended the feast to the bishops of England and Wales, restoring one commemorated in the Anglo-Saxon Church, and the feast was celebrated in some English cathedral and monastic churches. Anselm of Aosta, archbishop of Canterbury (1093–1109), declared that the Mother of God had been cleansed of original sin before her birth. Robert Grosseteste’s sermon ‘Tota pulchra est’ declared that Mary was born without the stain of original sin, owing to her prior sanctification. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio investigated the appropriateness of the new feast, as he was troubled by Bernard of Clairvaux’s opposition to it.

In a project so ambitious, it seems churlish to identify typographical errors: ‘The total of more one thousand …’ for ‘more than one thousand …’ (p. 34); ‘duplicats’ for ‘duplicates’ (p. 44); ‘Robert of Beverlay’ for Beverley (p. 49). Overall, however, students of the universities of Oxford and Paris will warmly welcome this volume, as will students of the history of theology and the Franciscan school.