William of Ockham beyond Michel Villey

a methodological alternative based on the legal-political interpretation of the medieval franciscan school

Abstract

Michel Villey is widely recognized as one of the main figures responsible for introducing the work of William of Ockham into the field of legal philosophy, exerting a strong influence on Brazilian legal tradition. For the French legal philosopher, the Franciscan friar promoted a decisive transformation in medieval law by basing his legal theses on his philosophical nominalism. This paper seeks to problematize this reading and present alternatives to it. To this end, it engages with Quentin Skinner's methodological warnings about writing the history of ideas in order to draw on Brian Tierney's critique of Villey's interpretation of Ockham. It argues that, although Ockham is one of the leading representatives of medieval nominalism, the direct association between this philosophical current and his political theory is neither necessary nor evident. In fact, many legal elements present in his work had already been formulated by Franciscan friars who preceded him. Indeed, although the impact of nominalism on modernity is undeniable, it is concluded that Villey's reading tends to historically decontextualize Ockham's political thought, perhaps artificially elevating the impact of the question of universals on the political sphere of the Middle Ages. In response, it is argued that William of Ockham's political writings must be placed in the context of internal disputes within the Franciscan order, particularly those relating to apostolic poverty and the controversy with Pope John XXII, factors that were more decisive for his political and legal formulation than his connection with nominalism