This handsome volume, edited by Fiorella Retucci, illuminates the philosophical teaching of the Franciscan school at Oxford in the 1250s through Thomas of York’s Sapientiale. Thomas is known to the scholarly community largely through the correspondence of Adam Marsh and his own treatises. The Comparatio sensibilium was edited by Antonio Punzi in Recherches de Théologie et philosophie médiévales in 2016, ‘a primitive draft’ of the Sapientiale. The Manus, que contra Omnipotentem tenditur Manus was edited by Max Bierbaum for Franziskanische Studien in 1920. Thomas’s sermon on the Passion was edited by J. P. Reilly Jr, in Franciscan Studies in 1964. The first volume of the Sapientiale was edited by Antonio Punzi in 2020 and the second by Fiorella Retucci. The Sapientiale was hailed as the La Premièr Somme Métaphysicque du XIII siècle by Fr Ephrem Longpré ofm, the author of a substantial analysis of this treatise. The third, the Manus, que contra Omnipotentem tenditur was a response to William of Saint-Amour’s Tractatus brevis de periculis novissimorum temporum; it is the only extant English contribution to the first phase of the mendicant controversy at the University of Paris c.1255/56. According to marginalia, the Sapientiale remained incomplete at the time of Thomas’s death in 1260 (Florence Conv. Soppr A.VI. 437 fo. 26r; ms Vat Lat. 4301, fo. 20vb). Thomas did not compile the fourth book because death prevented him – ‘liber quartus quem non complevit auctor morte preventus’ (Florence, Conv. Soppr. A.VI. 437, fo. IIIra and ‘quem complevit morte preventus’, ms Vat.lat. 4301, fo. 194vb). One of the scholars who made extensive use of Thomas’s work was Berthold of Moosburg, the principal Dominican lector at Cologne in the early fourteenth century, citing him as Thomas Anglicus. Thomas was one of the first Franciscan regent masters to produce major philosophical and theological texts, which have now found their respective editors. A further eight volumes are planned.

Thomas belonged to the second generation of scholars attending the friars’ school in Oxford. He seems to have been born in York about the turn of the thirteenth century, but nothing is known of his family. He seemingly entered the Order of Friars Minor at York and completed his year of novitiate, after which he took vows and then embarked upon his studies. It is probable that he studied the arts at the custodial school of York. The high standards of the custodial schools are reflected in the decision of the University of Oxford to deem them the equivalent to the course of studies for the MA. By 1245 Thomas was already moving in the upper echelons of the English province and was keeping the company of influential friars, such as Adam Marsh, John of Kent and Peter of Tewkesbury, who became the fifth minister provincial, a circle of friars with access to Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln. Adam Marsh commended Thomas to Robert Grosseteste: ‘a most devoted servant of your reverence, an active and discreet man of goodwill’ (Adam Marsh, pp. 64–5). He was one of the friars whom James Erlandson, bishop of Roskilde, consulted about the establishment of a Franciscan mission to Denmark in 1251. Adam was unable to find sufficient volunteers for the mission, perhaps a sign that the friars were becoming too comfortable and losing their prophetic edge. Thomas seems to have reached Oxford by 1245, when he was mentioned on numerous occasions. By 1251 William of Nottingham, the minister provincial, was eyeing him as a potential lector for one of the provincial friaries. Adam Marsh intervened to protect Thomas and to ensure that he was given sufficient space to prepare himself to succeed Eustace de Normanville as the regent master at the Oxford studium. Adam’s voice prevailed and, when Eustace of Normanville had completed his term as the regent master of the school of the Greyfriars, William of Nottingham nominated Thomas as his successor. When this appointment was submitted to the university officials in January 1253, it was objected that Thomas had not ruled in the arts, the customary qualification for a master in theology. Thomas’s confrères, Adam Marsh, Ralph of Corbridge and Eustace of Normanville had already ruled in the arts before joining the order. The University of Oxford did, however, concede that Thomas was exceptionally well prepared for the office, thereby giving an unofficial approbation to the order’s custodial schools. Adam Marsh’s correspondence traced the contours of the debate and recorded the views of the two parties. After some discussion consensus was reached and Thomas’s appointment was ratified on account of his ‘distinguished conduct, intellectual gifts and his proven learning which commend him to many’ (Adam Marsh, pp. 450-1). Thomas thereby became the fourth friar to serve as regent master at Oxford and held this position for about three years before crossing the Fens to Cambridge.

The introduction focuses on Thomas of York as well as the phases in the composition of the Sapientiale, the relationship between the manuscripts and the editorial norms. There are three manuscripts of the Sapientiale, all of which have the same incipit of ‘si quesieris sapientiam quasi pecuniam’. First, Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Conv. Soppr. A.VI.437, an English manuscript from the end of the thirteenth century and the beginning of the fourteenth. Secondly Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, ms Vat. Lat. 6771, belongs to the thirteenth century. Thirdly, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, ms Vat. Lat.4301 has been assigned to the fourteenth century. The second and the third manuscripts may have been copied in Italy. All three are written on parchment. In each case the Sapientiale is followed by the Comparatio sensibilium, which has been edited by Antonio Punzi. The third manuscript (Vat. Lat. 4301) is preceded by a folio of John Duns Scotus’ Reportatio Parisiensis. The first manuscript bears witness to the circulation of treatises from the Oxonian school beyond Dover, showing that that school was in contact with the wider Franciscan cosmos. It is clear that the manuscript of the Sapientiale poses some headaches for the editors. There is at least one lost exemplar, which may be the work of the author. The three manuscripts described above indicate that their exemplar was incomplete; hence the marginal additions and corrections. It was probably incomplete at the time of Thomas’s premature death. Two marginal notes indicate this. At the end of chapter eight and the beginning of chapter nine: ‘hic ponantur rationes Anselmi et rarum [sic] que sunt in alio quaterno’ (p. 91, critical apparatus no. 7). This volume offers readers an insight into the type of questions debated and the authorities used. Thomas employs the Categories, The Posterior Analsytics, the Topics, the Sophistici elenchi, the Physics, De caelo, De generatione et corruptione, De anima, De partibus animalium, De generatione animalium, the Metaphysica, the Nicomachean ethics. St Augustine was the ubiquitous authority for Christian sources and he is cited in numerous treatises; many of the citations consist of lengthy quotations from named treatises. St Anselm’s growing stature in the schools is also reflected in this edition, where his Proslogion made some appearances in relation to the ontological argument. Fr Daniel A. Callus op commented that Franciscan masters, such as Thomas of York, cited frequently Robert Grosseteste’s translations and his commentaries in their own library at Oxford, an interpretation confirmed by the author’s critical apparatus, which indicates that Thomas used Burgundio of Pisa’s translation of John of Damascus rather than Robert Grosseteste’s translation. The critical apparatus shows Thomas’s use of Dionysius the Areopagite’s De angelica hierarchia, De caelesti hierarchia, De divinis nominibus and Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics. This volume will be warmly welcomed by students of the Franciscan school at Oxford. It will also be received with gratitude by students of medieval history in thirteenth-century England.