2. Magnus, Albertus, Conmentarii in libros VIII Politicorum Aristotelis, Epilogue (Opera omnia, ed. Borgnet, A., 38 vols., Paris, 1890–1899, VIII, 803–804)Google Scholar. Cf. his remarks on the opponents of Aristotelianism in Commentarii in epistolas B. Dionysii Areopagitae, VIII, 2 (Opera omnia, XIV, 910).Google Scholar

3. The official repords pertaining to the history of the university and its faculties are contained in the Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, ed. Denifle, H. and Chatelain, E., 4 vols., Paris, 1889–1897Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Chartularium). There is no general study of the Paris arts faculty in this period; for its intellectual history, and its relations with the faculty of theology, in the thirteenth century, the most useful work is Vol. II (Siger dans l'histoire de l'aristotélisme) of Van Steenberghen's, F.Siger de Brabant d'après ses oeuvres inédites, 2 vols., “Les Philosophes Belges,” XII (1939), XIII (1942)Google Scholar. For the faculty of theology in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, see Feret, P., La Faculté de théologie de Paris et ses docteurs los plus célèbres du moyen age, 4 vols., Paris, 1894–1896.Google Scholar

4. The background and the constitutional aspects of this struggle are discussed by Rashdall, H., The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, (new ed., Powicke, F M. and Emden, A. B., 3 vols., Oxford, 1936), I, 370–395; 550–558.Google Scholar On its varied significance for intellectual freedom, see McLaughlin, , Intellectual Freedom, pp. 253–257; 304–306; 316–334; 336–338; 372–381.Google Scholar

5. The present state of research concerning Siger of Brabant is surveyed in a recent article by Van Steenberghen, F., “Siger of Brabant,” The Modern Schoolman, XXIX (1951), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar A considerable number of his surviving philosophical works have been published and interpreted by Van Steenberghen, Siger de Brabant d'après ses oeuvres inédite. and by Mandonuet, P., Siger de Brabant et l'avcrroisme latin au XIIIe siècle: étude critique et documents inédits, 2 vols., Louvain, 1908–1911Google Scholar (“Les Philosophes Belges,” VI and VII). Other works have been edited by Stegmüller, F., “Neuaufgefundene Quaestionen des Siger von Brabant,” Recherches do théologie ancienne et médlévale, III (1931), 172–182Google Scholar; Delhnye, P., Questions sur la Physique d'Aristote, “Les Philosophes Belges,” XV (1941)Google Scholar; Maier, A., “Nouvelles questions de Siger de Brabant sur Ia Physique d'Aristote,” Revue philosoplique Louvain, XLIV (1946), 497–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Graiff, P. C. A., Sigeri de Brabantia Questiones in Metaphysicam, Louvain, 1939,Google Scholar and Questions sur la Metaphysique, “Phitosophes Médiévaux,” I (1948).

6. For the opposition of theologians to the activities of masters of arts, see Chartularium, I, 47–48, 70–71, 78–79, 138, 141, and Grabmann, M., I Divieti ecclesiastici de Aristotele sotto Innocenzo III e Gregorio IX, Rome, 1941, especially pp. 57–69.Google Scholar The individuals and works which aroused this opposition are discussed by Capelle, G. C., Amaury de Béne: étude sur son pamthéisnw formel, “Bibliothéque Thomiste,” XVI (1932)Google Scholar; Théry, G., Autour du décret de 1210: I. David de Dinant: étude sur son panthésme matérialiste; II. Alexandre d'Aphrodise: apercu sur I'influence de sa noétique, Bibliothéque Thomiste,” V (1925) and VI (1926).Google Scholar

7. Summoned to appear before the Inquisitor-General of France in November, 1276, he appealed to the papal court where he spent the years until his death in 1284 (Mandonnet, II, 253–254).

8. Dante, , Paradiso, Canto X, 1. 136.Google ScholarDubois, Pierre refers to Siger, as “preeellentissimus doctor philosophic” in De recuperatione terre sancte, ed. Langlois, C., Paris, 1891, p. 121.Google Scholar

9. Quaestiones in Metaphysicam, III. 15 (Graiff, 1948, pp. 138, 139–140).Google Scholar

10. The quoted phrase appears in a letter of the university, February, 1254, (Chartularium, I, 252)Google Scholar.

11. Siger, of Brabant, De anima intellectiva, VI (Mandonnet, II, 164)Google Scholar; De aeternitate mundi (Mandonnet, II, 42)Google Scholar. Cf. the definition of philosophy by a contemporary master in an anonymous treatise quoted in Steenberghen, Van, II, 686–687, n. 5.Google Scholar

12. On the development of these methods, see especially, Grabmann, M., “Methoden und Hilfsmittel des Aristotelesstudiums im Mittelalter,” Sitzungsberichte der bayerisehen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Ahteilung (hereafter cited as SBA), 1939,Google Scholar Heft 5, and “Die Sophismataliteratur des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts, ,” Beitrage zur Geschichte tier Philosophic des Mittelalters, XXXVI (1940), Heft 1.Google Scholar

13. The phrase “via rationis” is frequently used by masters of this period to describe their methods of teaching and inquiry; see, e.g., Siger, of Brabant, Quaestiones in Metaphysicam, II (Fragmentum commentarii) and III. 15 (Graiff, 1948, pp. 29, 138)Google Scholar, and Magnus, Albertus, De generatione et corruptione, I.v.5 (Opera omnia, IV, 394).Google Scholar

14. The statutes of the arts faculty, 1272, deploring the abuses arising from current methods of discussion, offer some examples of their freedom (Chartularium, I, 499–500)Google Scholar. For others, see Siger, of Brabant, De anima intellectiva, I, (Mandonnet, II, 145)Google Scholar; De aeterwitate mundi, III (Mandonnet, II, 140); Quaestiones in Metaphysicam, III. 18 (Graiff, 1948, pp. 150–151)Google Scholar; and Grabmann, M., “Die Aristoteleskommentare des Simon von Faversham,” SBA, 1933, Heft 3, p. 11.Google Scholar

15. Siger, of Brabant, Quaestiones in Metaphysicam, III. 19Google Scholar (Graiff, 1948, pp. 154–156). On the development and use of “probable” argument in the thirteenth century, see Mullaly, J. P., ed., The ‘Summulae logicales' of Peter of Spain, “University of Notre Dame Publications in Medieval Studies,” VIII (1945), especially pp. 85–87,Google Scholar and Michaiski, K., “La Criticisme et le seepticisme dans la philosophic du XIVe siècle,” Bulletin de l'Aeadémie polonaise des sciences et des lcttres, Classe d'histoire et de philosophie, 1925, pp. 55–62, 116–117.Google Scholar

16. This “radical” minority was described as the “pars Sigerii” (Chartuiarium, I, 523, 526–527)Google Scholar.

17. These attitudes are clearly expressed in such works as those of Boetius of Dacia (Grabmann, M., “Die opuscula De summo bono sive de vita philosophi mid De sompniis des Boetius von Dacien,” Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, [2 vols., Munich, 1926–1936], II, 200–224)Google Scholar, and Siger, of Brabant (e.g., Quaestiones in tertium tie anima, 2, and Quaestiones tie anima, III. 20 [Van Steenberghen, I, 166, 152] ).Google Scholar

18. Chartularium, I, 499–500.Google Scholar

19. Ibid., I, 486–487 (the condemnation of 1270); 543–555 (the condemnation of 1277).

20. The notion of a “twofold truth” is not to be found in the surviving works of contemporary masters of arts; it was attributed to them by their opponents (Chartularium, I, 543,Google Scholar and Aquinas, St Thomas, De unitate intellectus, in Opera omnia, ed. Fretté, S. E. and Maré, P., [34 vols., Paris, 1871–1880], XXVII, 112)Google Scholar.

21. Gauthier, L., Accord decisif de la religion et de la philosophie, traité d'Ibn Rochd (Averroës), traduit et annoté, Algiers, 1905, especially pp. 19–24, 37–38.Google Scholar See also Gauthier, L., La Lhéorie d'Ibn Rochd (Averroës) sur Les rapports de la religion et de la philosophic, “Ecole de lettres d'Alger. Publication: Bulletin de correspondanee africaine,” Vol. 41 (1909), 57–59, 108–111, 116–117.Google Scholar

22. Grabmann, M., “Der lateinisehe Averroismus des 13. Jahrhunderts und seine Stellung zur christliehen Weltanschauung,” SBA, 1931, Heft 2, pp. 55–60.Google Scholar Cf. Gauthier, R., “Trois commentaires ‘averroistes’ sur l'Ethique à Nieomaque,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge,(hereafter cited as AHDL), XVI (1947–1948), pp. 284–291.Google Scholar

23. Siger, of Brabant, De anima intellectiva, VI (Mandonnet, II, 163–164)Google Scholar, Quaestiones in terlium de anima, 2 (Van Steenberghen, I, 165–166)Google Scholar, Quaestiones in Metaphysicam, II (Graiff, 1948, pp. 27–29)Google Scholar; Boetius, of Dacia, , De summo bono (Grabmann, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, II, 212, 215)Google Scholar. See also Magnus, Albertus, Comm. in epistolas B. Dionysii Areopagitae, VII, 2Google Scholar(Opera omnia, XIV, 910, 912),Google ScholarIn IV Sententiarum, P. XLIII, a. 3 (Opera omnia, XXX, 509)Google Scholar, and unpublished lectures on the Nichomachean Ethics, X (Vat. lat. 722, f. 198vb–199ra).Google Scholar

24. Adelard, of Bath, , Quaestiones naturales, ed. Müller, M., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophic des Mittelaltars, XXXI (1923), 2, 11–12.Google Scholar See also William, of Conches, , De philosophia mundi, II, 1–3Google Scholar (Migne, , PL, CLXXII, 57–58)Google Scholar, and Alan of Lille, De planctu naturae, III (Ibid., CCX, 446AB).

25. Siger, of Brabant, De anima intellectiva, VII (Mandonnet, II, 153)Google Scholar, Quaestiones in Metaphysicam, III. 18; V. 24 (Graiff, 1948, pp. 151, 363Google Scholar); Magnus, Albertus, De caclo et munia, I.1 (Opera omnia, IV, 24Google Scholar), Commentarii in X libros Ethicorum Ariutotelis, I. vii. 5 (Ibid., VII, 114), In II. Sententiarum, D. I. a.8 (Ibid., XXVII, 22). Cf. Maurcr, A., “An Averroistic Commentary on the Metaphysics in Cambridge Peterhouse Ms. 152”, Mediaeval Studies, XII (1950), 234.Google Scholar

26. Siger, of Brabant, De anima intellectiva, VII, IX (Mandonnet, II, 156–157, 169)Google Scholar, Quaestiones in Metaphysicam, III. 15; IV.29 (Graiff, 1948, pp. 139–140; 255–256).Google Scholar

27. Ibid., (Graiff, 1939, p. 165).

28. Ibid., III. 16 (Graiff, 1948, p. 145).

29. See, e.g., Siger, of Brabant, Quaestiones de anima, III. 6, 7Google Scholar (Van Steenberghen, I, 130–135); Quaestiones super Physicam, VIII. 6 (Ibid., I, 230).

30. Cf. Van Steenberghen, II, 618–619, 623.

31. For Siger's conception of “certitude”, see Quaestiones in Metaphysicam, II. 19 (Graiff, 1948, pp. 78–79).Google Scholar

32. Dante, , Paradiso, Canto X, 1. 138.Google Scholar Cf. Siger, of Brabant, Quaestiones in Metaphysicam, II (Graiff, 1948, p. 29).Google Scholar

33. On the Oxford masters of this period and their methodological achievements, see Crombie, A. C., Robert Grosseteste and the Origins of Experimental Science, 1100–1700, Oxford, 1953, pp. 135–188.Google Scholar

34. B. N. Lat. 14698, f. 130rb, cited by Gauthier, R., “Trois commentaires ‘averroistes”…”, AHDL, XVI (1947–1948), 227.Google Scholar

35. McLaughlin, , Intellectual Freedom, pp. 140–156.Google Scholar

36. William, of Dialogus, Ockham, I. ii. 22 (ed. Goldast, M., Monarchia s. Romani Imperiii sive Tractatus de Jurisdictione Imperiali, Regia, et Pontificia…, 3 vols., Frankfurt, 1668, II).Google Scholar

37. The most complete accounts of Buridan's life and works are those of Faral, E.: “Jean Buridan”, Histoire littéraire de la France, XXXVIII, 462–605,Google Scholar and “Jean Buridan: notes sur les manuscrits, les éditions et Ie contenu de sos ouvrages”, AHDL, XV, (1946), 1–53.Google Scholar

38. The quoted phrase is from a late fourteenth century treatise on natural philosophy, Lat, B. N.. 6752 (Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, [6 vols., New York, 1923–1941], III, 573).Google Scholar

39. For examples of this use of “probable” or hypothetical argument, see Ioannis Buridani Quaestiones super libros quattuor de caelo et mundo, II. 7, 22 (ed. Moody, E. A., Cambridge, Mass., 1942, pp. 154–160, 227–229)Google Scholar; Acutissimae philosophi reverendi Magistri Joannis Buridani sub tillissismae quaestiones super octo Physicorum libros Aristotellis, Diligender recognitae et revisae a Magistro Dullaert de Gandavo …. Paris, 1509, VIII. 12, f. 120v–121v.Google Scholar; In Metaphysicen Aristotelis qnaestiones argutissimac Magistri Joannis Buridani in ultima praelectione ab ipso recognitac et emissae, ac ad archetypum diligenter repositae …, Ascensius, J. Badius, Paris, 1518, XII. 9, f. 62 c.Google Scholar See also Oresme, N., Le Livre du ciel et du monde, II. 25 (ed. Menut, A. P. and Denomy, A. J., Mediaeval Studies, IV [1942], 270–279).Google Scholar

40. Instances of Buridan's empiricism are especially common in his unpublished Quaestiones in libris Meteorologicorum Aristotelis, discussed by Faral, , ELF, XXXVIII, 548–559.Google Scholar

41. On the influence of Oxford masters at Paris, see Crombie, , Robert Grosseteste, pp. 191–212.Google Scholar Early fourteenth century disciples of Albertus Magnus are discussed by Grabmann, M., “Die Aristoteleskommentare des Heinrich von Brüssel”, SB, 1943, Heft 10,Google Scholar and Stroick, C.. Herinrich von Friemar (c. 1245–1340), Leben, Werke, philosophisch-theoiogisch Stellung in der Scholastik, Bonn, 1943.Google Scholar

42. Duhem, P., Le Système du monde: histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic, (5 vols., Paris, 1913–1917), IV, 6–19, 30–38, 60–69, 76–90;Google ScholarThorndike, , III, 253–267.Google Scholar

43. Burdan, John, In Metaphysicen Aristotelis quaesliones …, XII. 9, f. 62c, 72;Google Scholar XII. 11, f. 74; Quaestiones de caelo et mundo, II 7, 22Google Scholar (Moody, pp. 159–160, 227).

44. Cf. Crombie, , Robert Grosseteste, p. 134.Google Scholar

45. lohannis Buridani Philosophi trecetis retro annis celeberrimi Quaestiones in decem libros Ethicorum Asistotelis ad Nichomachum, Oxford, 1637, 111.1, p. 270.Google Scholar

46. For these limitations, see the statutes of 1272 and the oaths of those incepting in arts in the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Chartularium, I, 499–500, 586–587; II, 675), and Buridan's remarks in his Quaestiones super octo Physicorurn libros…, IV, 8.

47. Buridan, John, Quaestiones in decem libros Ethicorum…, III. 1, p. 270.Google Scholar

48. See e.g., In Metaphysicen Aristotelis quaestiones …, I. 2, f.3; XII. 9, f. 64; Quaestionea super octo Physicorum libros …, III. 15Google Scholar; Quaestiones in decem libros Ethicoruin…, III. 3, pp. 324–326Google Scholar; Quaestiones de caelo et mundo, II. 12 (Moody, pp. 180–181).Google Scholar

49. So Henry, of Ghent, describes the scope of theology, Doctoris Solemnis Magistn Henrici Goethals a Gandavo socii Sorbonici et Archidiaconi Tornacensis, Disputationes Quodlibeticae de omni genere divinae sapientiae quam Theologiam vocamus refertissimae, Paris, 1518, Quodlibet VII, q. 29.Google Scholar

50. On the life and works of Godfrey of Fontaines, see Glorieux, P., Répertoire des maitres en théologie de Paris au XIIIe siécle, (2 vols., Paris, 1933–1934), I, 396–399Google Scholar; La Littérature quodlibétique de 1260 à 1320, (2 vols., “Bibliothèque thomiste,” V [1925], XXI [1935]), I, 149–168; II, 102–104Google Scholar; de Wulf, M., Éludes sur la vie, des oeuvres, et l'influence de Godefroid de Fontaines: un théologien-philosophe du XIIIe siècle, “Les Philosophes Belges” (hereafter cited as PB), I, (1904).Google Scholar

51. The quodlibets of Godfrey of Fontaines have been edited by de Wuif, M., Peizer, A., Hoffmans, J., Godfridi de Fontibus Quodlibeta, PB, II-V, XIV (1904–1933).Google Scholar For a discussion of the general character of the quodlibetic disputatious, see Glorieux, , La Littérature quodlibétique, I, 1–89; II, 1–44.Google Scholar

52. Godfrey of Fontaines, Quodlibets IV, q. 10 (PB, II, 261–264); VIII, q. 7 (PB, IV, 79–81); IX, q. 20 (PB, IV, 288). Cf. J.Leclercq, , “La Théologie comme science d'après la littérature quodlibétique”, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, XI (1939), 360–385.Google Scholar

53. Ibid., p. 374.

54. Quodlibet XII, q. 5 (PB, V, 103).

55. Quodlibet III, q. 5 (PB, II, 195–197).

56. Ibid., p. 197.

57. Quodlibets XII, q. 5 (PB, V, 100); VII, q. 18 (PB, IV, 95).

58. Quodlibets III, q. 5 (PB, II, 207); IX, q. 5 (PB, IV, 294).

59. Quodlibet III, q. 9 (PB, II 217).

60. Chartulanium, I, 592–593Google Scholar (the bull Ad fructus uberes). On this controversy, see especially Glorieux, P., “Prélats francais contre religieux mendiants,” Revue d'histoire de l'église de France, XIV (1935), 309–331, 421–495Google Scholar; Gratien, P. “Ordres mendiants et clergé seculier à la fin du XIIIe siècle,” Études franciscaines, XXXVI (1924), 499–518Google Scholar; Sehleyer, K., Die Anfänge des Gallikanismus im 13. Jahrhundert: der Widerstand des französischen Klerus gegen die Privilegierung der Bettelorden, Berlin, 1937.Google Scholar

61. Henry, of Ghent, in Finke, H., Aus den Tagen Bonifas VIII, Münster, 1902 pp. v–vi.Google Scholar

62. E.g., Henry of Ghent, Quodlibets VII, q. 20; X, q. 16; Gervais of Mont SaintEloi, Quodhibet, q. 55 (Glorieux, , Littérature quodlibétique, I, 137).Google Scholar

63. Godfrey of Fontaines, Quodlibet XII, q. 6 (PB, V, 105).

64. Henry, of Ghent, , Quodlibets XII, q. 24Google Scholar; XV, q. 15; Godfrey of Fontaines, Quodhibet III, q. 10 (PB, II, 217).

65. Cliartulanium, III, 595Google Scholar (Tractatus de schismate, 1391, possibly written by John Gerson).

66. Notable instances of the resistance of individuals to the decisions of Paris theologians—in addition to the case of Peter Olivi, discussed below—are the cases of Arnald of Villanova in 1300 and, later in the fourteenth century, of Denis Foullechat and John, of Monteson, (Chartularium, II, 86–90Google Scholar; III, 114–124, 182–185; 491–530).

67. On Olivi, see especially Ehrle, F., “Petrug Olivi, sein Leben und seine Schriften,” Archiv für Literatur-und Kirchengeschichte, III (1887), 409–623Google Scholar; Douie, D., The Nature and Effect of the Heresy of the Fraticelli, Manchester, 1932, pp. 81–119Google Scholar; Jarraux, L., “Pierre Jean Olivi, sa vie, sa doctrine,” Études franciscaines, XLV (1933), 129–153, 227–298, 513–529.Google Scholar

68. “Chronicle of the 24 Generals,” Archivum franciscanum histonicum, III, 374.Google Scholar

69. A part of Olivi's “Letter to his Judges” was published by Ehrle, F., Archiv für Literatun- and Kirchengeschichte, III, 418–421.Google Scholar

70. Jarraux, L., “Pierre Jean Olivi,” Études franciscaines, XLV, 144,Google Scholar and Wadding, L., Annales Minorurn seu triurn ordinurn a San Francisco institutorum (1208–1540), (8 vols., Lyons, 1625–1654), V, 375–380.Google Scholar

71. In spite of this reservation, some of Olivi's opinions were not, in fact, agreeable either to the pope or to a general couneil, for his apocalyptic doctrines were censured by Pope Johii XXII Chartulariurn, II, 338–339), and the Council of Vienne condemned a doctrine concerning the soul closely similar to that of Olivi (Corpus iuris canomici, Ciementin., 1. i. 1).

72. Siger, of Brabant, Quaestiones in Metaphysicam, IV. 32 (Graiff, 1948, p. 261)Google Scholar.

73. See, e. g., the remarks of Bernard of Trilia (Glorieux, P., “Le Mémoire justificatif de Bernard de Trilia, O. P. (1286),” Revue des sciences phitosophiques et théologiques, XVII (1928), 407–412,Google Scholar and the statement of Nicholas of Autrecourt (Chartuiarium, II, 578).Google Scholar

74. Ibid., II, 581–582.

75. See above, n.2.

76. Nichomachean Ethics, I. 6, 1096a, 1103a, 1125a.

77. Ibid., 1096a.

78. Boetius, of Dacia, , De summo bono…(Grabmann, Mittelalterhiches Geistesleben, II, 209–216).Google Scholar

79. Gauthier, R., “Trois commentaires ‘averroistes’…’, AHDL, XVI, 292–293.Google Scholar

80. The quoted phrase is from Jacob, E. F., Essays in the Concillar Epoch, Manchester, 1943, p. 88.Google Scholar

81. Godfrey of Fontaines, Quodlibet XII, q. 5 (PB, V, 100–101).