Jonathan Robinson provides a ‘synchronic reading’ of Pope John xxii's bulls pertaining to the Franciscan poverty controversy and the Michaelists' responses. Robinson's ultimate aim is to uncover the context for Ockham's early theory of property rights in his Opus nonaginta dierum (c.1332), but far less of the book than might be assumed is devoted to Ockham's work. Between an introduction and conclusion fall six chapters devoted to particular terms or concepts that were central to the poverty debate. Chapter ii presents John xxii's positions on them all; the remaining chapters generally present the treatment of one of those concepts (ius, dominium, usus, consumables and corporate poverty) by each ‘Michaelist’, i.e. Bonagratia of Bergamo, Michael of Cesena, Francis of Marchia and then Ockham. This approach means that the reader will not find a summary treatment of any work by these authors but rather a discussion of what an author thought about each concept followed by what the other authors, in comparison with their peers' works, thought. Robinson bases his approach on Quentin Skinner's contextualism, which Robinson discusses in his introduction. Chapter iii includes a fine introduction to natural law (ius naturale) in the civil and canonical jurisprudence of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The discussion of natural law forms an important background to the heart of the debate since, for instance, the Michaelists argued that the Franciscans' use (usus) of things necessary to their survival was rooted in natural, not civil, law (ch. v). The conclusion provides helpful summaries followed by an analysis of Ockham's usage of law, showing that Ockham must have studied some portions of the Decretum and Decretales and their glosses independently. Robinson frequently admits that the texts at hand are tedious. His discussion at times becomes similarly tedious. Nevertheless, he often pauses with summaries and displays a gift for tracing difficult arguments, presenting their crucial points in simpler form, and, most important for those interested in the poverty controversy, reminding the reader how the main thrust of these detailed arguments would apply to Franciscans. Unfortunately the volume does not manifest clarity in every respect. Numerous typos plague it, the worst of which is ‘civil and roman law’ instead of ‘canon and Roman law’ (p. 10). Figures, timelines and appendices provide titles or abbreviations of works without authorial attribution, and it is difficult to keep track of who wrote what. The list of abbreviations helps, but, all philosophical rationale for not making any distinction between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ sources aside, a standard bibliography listing all the works by Michael or Ockham with their place in printed editions would have been useful. The book is not introductory reading on the Franciscan poverty controversy, but it is necessary reading for philosophers, political scientists or intellectual historians interested in the controversy, Ockham's early work, or the development of property rights.