Reviewed by: Ockham and Political Discourse in the Late Middle Ages George Knysh Ockham and Political Discourse in the Late Middle Ages. By Takashi Shogimen. [Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, Fourth Series, Vol. 69.] (New York: Cambridge University Press. 2007. Pp. xiv, 301. $99.00. ISBN 978-0-521-84581-6.) This latest monograph on Ockham's political thought is close in spirit to much earlier publications, especially to Arthur Stephen McGrade's The [End Page 809] Political Thought of William of Ockham (1974), which it frequently cites and debates, sometimes with approval, sometimes not. Except for sporadic text-critical utilizations, Shogimen's volume ignores the British Academy's ongoing edition of Ockham's Dialogus (1995–) with its useful introductions and analyses. Shogimen rejects "anything like a 'unity' or a 'system' in Ockham's polemic activities" (pp. 32–33). Nevertheless, he then asserts that he will be presenting Ockham's views as a series of "consistent responses from a constant perspective to a variety of changing issues." Such ambiguous self-contradictions abound in Shogimen's book, in comments on Ockham no less than on scholarly assessments of his positions. He clarifies his fundamental conclusion in two main contexts (pp.34–35, pp. 261–62), suggesting that Ockham was not a destructive critic of medieval ecclesiastical institutions, a traditionalist conservative opposing papal innovations, a Franciscan ideologue, nor a constitutional liberal, but rather an "'ecclesiastical republican', a republican in the medieval ecclesiological context"(p. 258),who "restored the language of morality in late mediaeval political discourse" (p. 262) by exhorting his fellows "to fulfill their public duties in the Christian community" (p. 261). The challenge of an accurate political labeling of Ockham cannot be resolved save through painstaking analysis of his tracts, especially the Dialogus. Convincing scholarship requires a sound method of interpretation and a correct reading of the text. Shogimen's monograph is sometimes weak in both respects. He has no discernible approach toward textual identities other than "agreeing with Kilcullen and Knysh" (p. 76, n. 1). This seems impressionistic and arbitrary. No one in agreement with Political Ockhamism's pp. 237–42 could, for instance, claim that Ockham thought the true faith might temporarily reside in the mind of an infant (pp. 104, 238). Even more serious are Shogimen's lapses as to proper textual reporting. One example suffices, although more could be adduced. Crucial to Shogimen's thesis that Ockham was an "ecclesiastical republican" is the contention that he accepted the possibility of drastic constitutional change in the Church (e.g., aristocratic government), due to his alleged rejection of "papal" (as contrasted to "Petrine") primacy (pp. 175–231). Copiously citing 3 Dialogus 1 in evidence,Shogimen fails to inform his readers that in 3 Dialogus 1.2.25 Ockham categorically ruled out the "aristocratic" scenario as contravening Christ's ordination and took his stand firmly on traditional Catholicism. Nor did Ockham play modernistic games with papal primacy. There are multiple texts in 3 Dialogus 1 (the best are in 3 Dial. 1.1.16 and 17, both left unmentioned by Shogimen) where Ockham clearly stated that primacy was granted by Christ to Peter "et successoribus suis." Equally devastating for the theory of a "republican" Ockham is his ad nauseam repetition in the Dialogus that his communitas christianorum was strictly regulated on the basis of status et gradus, a view that does not correlate at all with Shogimen's anachronistic presentation of an equalitarian Christian fellowship founded on cognitive criteria (p. 259). [End Page 810] The failure of an author's fundamental idea does not condemn his enterprise to residual insignificance. Georges de Lagarde is a case in point. Shogimen's monograph is not as constructively creative as McGrade's, as comprehensively truth-building as Jürgen Miethke's, or as delightfully provocative and insightful as Brian Tierney's Ockham chapters and articles. Despite the weaknesses noted, Shogimen offers interesting contributions to our understanding of the politics of the Venerabilis Inceptor. His constant comparisons of Ockham to his contemporaries in their treatment of common theoretical issues are original and informative, and his frequent attempts to relate Ockham's technical philosophy to his polemic output are enlightening. For this...