 One of the most interesting features in Oresme’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics is his view on the ontological status of accidents. Characteristic of Oresme’s view on accidents is that he does not consider them accidental forms, but only so-called condiciones or modi (se habendi) of the substance. But this does not mean that Oresme identifies accidents with the substance in the way that Ockham had identified the quantity of a substance with the substance itself. Rather, Oresme regards accidents as distinct from the substance, but he assigns them a lower ontological status than the commonly accepted accidental forms. For Oresme motion, being-in-a-place (esse in loco), the quantity of a substance, its esse tantam, and qualities (such as the esse album of a substance) are such condiciones or modi (Celeyrette/Mazet 1998; Caroti 2000; Caroti 2001; Caroti 2004; Mazet 2000; Kirschner 1997, 52–61, 73–76, 121, 141–142; Kirschner, 2000b, pp. 263–272). As Panzica has solved the complex question of Oresme’s authorship of his Commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology by identifying two different redactions (Panzica 2015; Panzica 2017), we can now be certain that Oresme took the first steps in establishing his condicio theory of accidents in the first redaction of his Meteorology Commentary (Kirschner 2010), which is probably his earliest work (Panzica 2017, 27–33).