1 For a general background to the historiography, see van Steenberghen, Fernand, La philosophie au xiii^e siècle (Louvain, 1991), 11–22; for a review of more recent scholarship, see Emery, Kent Jr., and Speer, Andreas, “Introduction,” in Nach der Verurteilung von 1277 , ed. Aertsen, Jan A., Emery, Kent Jr., and Speer, Andreas, Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 28 (Berlin, 2001), 3–19. This paper was first presented at Professor Giles Constable's seminar at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. I wish to thank all those who took part for their valuable comments, and especially Jason Glenn for commenting on an earlier draft.Google Scholar

2 Bianchi, Luca, “1277: A Turning Point in Medieval Philosophy?” in Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter? ed. Aertsen, Jan A. and Speer, Andreas, Mediaevalia, Miscellanea, 26 (Berlin, 1998), 90–110, at 91. This also supplements the extensive bibliography of Bianchi, Il vescovo e i filosofi. La condanna parigina del 1277 e l'evoluzione dell'aristotelismo scolastico (Bergamo, 1990).Google Scholar

3 That is, the context of the university as a teaching institution, rather than the juridical context employed by Thijssen, J. M. M. H., “What Really Happened? Bishop Tempier's Condemnation and its Institutional Context,” in Texts and Contexts in Ancient and Medieval Science: Studies on the Occasion of John E. Murdoch's Seventieth Birthday , ed. Sylla, Edith and McVaugh, Michael (Leiden, 1997), 84–114.Google Scholar

4 Wippel, John F., “The Condemnations of 1270 and 1277 at Paris,” The Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 7 (1977): 169–201, at 171.Google Scholar

5 See Mandonnet, Pierre, Siger de Brabant, Les Philosophes Belges, 6 (Louvain, 1911), 220.Google Scholar

6 Bazán, Bernardo, Siger de Brabant. Quaestiones in tertium de anima. De anima intellectiva. De aeternitate mundi (Louvain, 1972). For a discussion of the evolution of Siger's teaching, see van Steenberghen, Fernand, Maître Siger de Brabant, Philosophes médiévaux, 21 (Louvain, 1977), 399–403, and Van Steenberghen, , Philosophie au xiii^e siècle, 347–48.Google Scholar

7 Hissette, Roland, Enquête sur les 219 articles condamnés à Paris le 7 mars 1277, Philosophes médiévaux, 22 (Louvain, 1977), 313–18. Such attributions have been used by Hissette and others to argue a malicious intent on the part of Tempier and the committee of theologians that drew up the list of articles, yet they would seem to assume such an intent in the first place.Google Scholar

8 This has also been noted by Thijssen, “What Really Happened?” 100 n. 3. It will be argued here that this is more important than has been realized; see below, p. 226.Google Scholar

9 See de Libera, Alain, “Philosophie et censure. Remarques sur la crise universitaire parisienne de 1270–1277,” in Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter? 71–89.Google Scholar

10 Van Steenberghen, , Siger de Brabant , 155–6.Google Scholar

11 Mandonnet (Siger de Brabant, 219) saw it as probable that the irreligious and immoral articles of 1277 were the work of students. Hissette, Roland, “Étienne Tempier et ses condamnations,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 47 (1980): 231–70, at 267, considers the question in the context of whether or not Tempier can be excused, but rejects the idea that student involvement can excuse him. Piché, D., ed., La condamnation parisienne de 1277 (Paris, 1999), 180, repeats Hissette's idea that it might have been students who deformed the teachings of their masters, but does not follow this up. Thijssen (“What Really Happened,” 90) points out that the vagueness of the decree suggests that not all of those involved were fully fledged masters, but draws no conclusions.Google Scholar

12 “Repeated accounts, inspired by a zeal for the faith, from great and serious persons have intimated that a number of students in the arts at Paris, overstepping the boundaries of their own faculty, are presuming to discuss and dispute in the schools, as if they were open to doubt, certain manifest and detestable errors, or rather false trifles and absurdities (contained in the roll or sheets attached to the present document), not heeding the words of Gregory: ‘Let him who endeavors to speak wisely beware of disturbing the unity of his audience by his words,’ especially when they fortify the aforementioned errors with the writings of pagans, which (for shame!) they assert to be so forceful that, given their ignorance, they do not know how to answer them. So that they should not seem to affirm what they thus imply, however, they so cloak their responses that, while they think they are avoiding Scylla they fall into Charybdis. For they say that these things are true according to philosophy, but not according to the Catholic faith, as if there were two contrary truths, and as if opposed to the truth of Holy Scripture there were a truth in the sayings of damned heathens, about whom it is written that ‘I shall destroy the wisdom of the wise,’ since true wisdom destroys false wisdom.” The text is taken from Piché, Condamnation, 724. This text is also to be found in Denifle, H. and Chatelain, A., eds., Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis , 2 vols. (Paris, 1899; facsimile edition Brussels, 1964), 1:543–44 (henceforth referred to as CUP), and Hissette, Enquête, 13–14.Google Scholar

13 “Ne igitur incauta locutio simplices pertrahat in errorem, nos … districte talia et similia fieri prohibemus et ea totaliter condempnamus, excommunicantes omnes illos qui dictos errores vel aliquem de eisdem dogmatizaverint aut deffendere seu sustinere presumpserint quoquomodo, necnon et auditores, nisi infra septem dies nobis vel cancellario parisiensi duxerint revelandum, nichilominus contra eos processuri pro qualitate culpe ad penas alias, prout ius dictaverit, infligendas” (Piché, , Condamnation , 74–76).Google Scholar

14 It might be argued that there is a possible ambiguity in the Latin, and that Tempier could be ascribing imperitia to the studentes. This is unlikely, given the use of the reflexive suus, but even if it were the case, it is equally inconceivable that Tempier would use such insulting language of the masters.Google Scholar

15 See Weijers, Olga, La “Disputatio” à la Faculté des arts de Paris (1200–1350 environ): esquisse d'une typologie. Studia Artistarum, 2 (Turnhout, 1995), 42; Weijers, , “La ‘Disputatio,’” in L'enseignement des disciplines à la Faculté des arts (Paris et Oxford, xiii^e–xv^e siècles) , ed. Weijers, Olga and Holtz, Louis, Artistarum, Studia, 4 (Turnhout, 1997), 393–404, at 393.Google Scholar

16 On the statutes relating to disputation, see Rashdall, H., The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages , 3 vols. (Oxford, 1936), 1:452.Google Scholar

17 Weijers, , La “disputatio,” passim.Google Scholar

18 “Quod scientia magistri et discipuli est una numero. Ratio autem quod intellectus sic unus est quia forma non multiplicatur, nisi quia educitur de potentia materie” (Piché, , Condamnation , 114). In this, as in all other examples, the number refers to the original order of the theses, as found in ibid. and CUP, while the number in parentheses refers to the numbering in Mandonnet, Siger, and Hissette, Enquête. Google Scholar

19 The true debate centered around two intellects, the potential and the agent intellect. Most commentators were agreed that the agent intellect was one, but Averroës claimed that there was also only one potential intellect. On this question, see Kuksewicz, Z., “The Potential and the Agent Intellect,” in The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy , ed. Kretzmann, Norman, Kenny, Anthony, and Pinborg, Jan (Cambridge, 1982), 595–601.Google Scholar

20 See Bazán, , In tertium de anima , 26: “… uno accipiente scientiam, omnes acciperent scientiam, quod videtur esse inconveniens.” The objection is refuted on p. 28–29.Google Scholar

21 153 (182): “Quod nichil plus scitur propter scire theologiam;” 172 (207): “Quod delectatio in actibus venereis non impedit actum seu usum intellectus;” 179 (203): “Quod non est confitendum, nisi ad apparentiam.” Google Scholar

22 That students were the ones whose morals were in danger is also suggested by Piché, , Condamnation , 230.Google Scholar

23 CUP , 1:170: “… in quibusdam scriptis. …” Google Scholar

24 On Paris, see Weijers, , La “disputatio;” Weijers, , “La ‘Disputatio.’” For a study of disputation in German universities, see Horn, Ewald, “Die Disputationen und Promotionen an den Deutschen Universitäten vornehmlich seit dem 16. Jahrhundert,” Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, Beiheft 11 (Leipzig, 1893).Google Scholar

25 However, see Weijers, , La “disputatio,” 102–5, and 109.Google Scholar

26 On attitudes to reportationes , see Hamesse, Jacqueline, “La technique de la reportation,” in L'enseignement des disciplines , 405–22.Google Scholar

27 Some of the texts examined by Hissette are, of course, the products of disputations, but they do not account for a significant proportion of his attributions. One might add that it is even quite likely that the original sources for the 1277 articles were destroyed after use had been made of them.Google Scholar

28 Leff, Gordon, “The Trivium and the Three Philosophies,” in Universities in the Middle Ages , ed. de Ridder-Symoens, Hilde, A History of the University in Europe, 1 (Cambridge, 1992), 307–36, at 326–28. Rashdall, (Universities, 1:451) even suggests that this practice may have been started by students rather than masters.Google Scholar

29 Schwinges, Rainer Christoph, “Student Education, Student Life,” in Universities in the Middle Ages , 195–243, at 233; Leff, , “Trivium,” 326. It is interesting in this regard that a statute of the English nation of 1252 lays down that a master may not allow bachelors to determine (CUP, 1:230).Google Scholar

30 Bazán, , In tertium de anima, quaest. 11, p. 31: “Quaeritur consequenter de anima in statu separationis, et est quaestio non multum philosophica, scilicet utrum anima separata pati possit ab aliqua natura elementari, ut ab igne.” Google Scholar

31 Thus, from the above question of whether the separated soul can suffer from fire, one could extract the proposition “Quod anima separata pati non possit ab aliqua natura elementari, ut ab igne.” The actual wording of article 19 (219), “Quod anima separata nullo modo patitur ab igne,” would therefore imply that Siger's text is not the source of this particular error, but this article is one of the few rather general propositions, and appears to have been lifted from Tempier's condemnation of 1270.Google Scholar

32 Mandonnet, , Siger , 219; de Libera, , “Philosophie et censure,” 76–77.Google Scholar

33 As de Libera has pointed out, this observation rather does away with the problem of why the list is so haphazard. This has lost some of its urgency now that scholars are no longer looking for a coherent doctrinal position in Tempier's list, although one can appreciate that the list in its original form was not very handy for those who wished or needed to make use of it. But it is otherwise clear that the disorder is more apparent than real, and merely reflects the manner in which the list was put together.Google Scholar

34 See above, p. 222–3.Google Scholar

35 Van Steenberghen, , Philosophie au xiii^e siècle , 81–92 and 321–25. The text of the statute is given in CUP, 1:277–79, and seems to indicate that these works had, in fact, already been taught for some time, since the statute is aimed solely at reaffirming the times when they should be lectured on and preventing masters from finishing their courses early.Google Scholar

36 Ibid., 128.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., 385–87.Google Scholar

38 “Involebit siquidem iam dudum circa intellectum error apud multos, ex dictis Averrois …” (Aquinas, Thomas, Tractatus de unitate intellectus contra Averroistas , ed. Keeler, Leo W. [Rome, 1936], § 1).Google Scholar

39 de Libera, , “Philosophie et censure.” His thesis that Tempier and his commission “invented” the 219 articles becomes less likely, however, in view of the condemnation of 1270, which de Libera claims to be along the same lines. Did Tempier really have nothing better to do than to think up and publish heresies? And surely, if condemning the thirteen articles of 1270 led to their spread within the university, he might have thought twice about having another go. Rather, we should see the repeated measures of the 1270s as a sure sign that something was happening within the arts faculty which the earlier measures had failed to stop.Google Scholar

40 CUP , 1: 486–87.Google Scholar

41 This, indeed, is the testimony of Gilles de Lessines in his letter to Albert the Great (Van Steenberghen, , Philosophie au xiii^e siècle , 416–20). Van Steenberghen dates this letter to 1275, but I find his reasons unconvincing. The most obvious piece of evidence in this matter is the repetition of the thirteen articles from the 1270 condemnation (with the addition of two others), and it seems to me that a date closer to 1270 is required. Besides, apart from the fact that many other propositions must have been being discussed by 1275, if one believes the text of 1277, all the evidence suggests that the masters were no longer teaching these things by that date.Google Scholar

42 “Si quis … velit contra haec quae scripsimus aliquid dicere, non loquatur in angulis nec coram pueris qui nesciunt de tam arduis iudicare; sed contra hoc scriptum rescribat, si audet; …” (Aquinas, , De unitate intellectus , § 124).Google Scholar

43 This language is very similar to that of the 1255 statute, fixing prescribed times for lecturing on certain books. In fact, the 1272 statute was issued only by a majority of masters, since there was at that time a split in the faculty. This, however, was a purely “political” affair, with one nation, the Normans, having seceded, and no doctrinal issues are mentioned.Google Scholar

44 “… statuimus et ordinamus quod nullus magister vel bachellarius nostre facultatis aliquam questionem pure theologicam, utpote de Trinitate et Incarnatione sicque de consimilibus omnibus, determinare seu etiam disputare presumat, tanquam sibi determinatos limites transgrediens …” ( CUP , 1:499).Google Scholar

45 “Statuimus insuper et ordinamus quod si questionem aliquam, que fidem videatur attingere simulque philosophiam, alicubi disputaverit Parisius, si illam contra fidem determinaverit, ex tunc ab eadem nostra societate tanquam hereticus perpetuo sit privatus, …” (ibid.).Google Scholar

46 The wording of the text also seems to suggest that bachelors were involved in determination, even though this is not unambiguous.Google Scholar

47 “Superaddentes iterum quod si magister vel bachellarius aliquis nostre facultatis passus aliquos difficiles vel aliquas questiones legat vel disputet, que fidem videantur dissolvere, aliquatenus videatur; rationes autem seu textum, si que contra fidem, dissolvat vel etiam falsas simpliciter et erroneas totaliter esse concedat, et aliter hujusmodi difficultates vel in textu vel in auctoritatibus disputare vel legere non presumat, sed hec totaliter tanquam erronea pretermittat” ( CUP , 1: 499–500).Google Scholar

48 Bianchi, Luca, Censure et liberté intellectuelle à l'université de Paris (xiii^e–xiv^e siècles) (Paris, 1999), 187–90.Google Scholar

49 It may be noted that this injunction again suggests that neither the presiding master nor the respondent had any control over which questions were disputed, but that they came from the audience, either during the disputation or written down beforehand.Google Scholar

50 CUP , 1: 538–39. It has been suggested that Aquinas's injunction in the De unitate intellectus “not to speak in corners” is a hint that such secret lessons were already taking place in his time (Aquinas, De unitate intellectus, 80 n. 33). But the allusion is too vague to give this much serious consideration. Besides, it would have been difficult to organize lectures or disputations while standing in corners, and it is more likely that Aquinas was trying to put a stop to secretive discussions and rumor-mongering.Google Scholar

51 “… quidam errores in prejudicium ejusdem fidei de novo pullulasse dicuntur” ( CUP , 1:541).Google Scholar

52 “… a quibus personis et in quibus locis errores hujusmodi dicti sunt sive scripti …” (ibid.).Google Scholar

53 Most scholars presume that it was. For the contrary argument, however, see Thijssen, , “What Really Happened?” 91–94.Google Scholar

54 An exception is Bianchi, “1277.” Google Scholar

55 Thijssen, , “What Really Happened?” Google Scholar

56 Thijssen does acknowledge that this is true of 1270, but without modifying his argument. The 1241 condemnation is assigned to a Frater Stephanus in CUP, but according to the notes this assignation is made in only one MS, while the versions that Thijssen presents (“What Really Happened?” appendix I, 108 and 110) are also anonymous.Google Scholar

57 Ibid., 87–91.Google Scholar

58 The condemnation of 1270 is couched in such general terms that it is impossible to draw any conclusions from it.Google Scholar

59 On the similarity between the two condemnations, see Hissette, Roland, “Note sur la réaction ‘antimoderniste’ d'Étienne Tempier,” Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 22 (1980): 88–97, at 88 n. 2; and Bianchi, , “1277,” 93–95.Google Scholar

60 “… dampnatio ibi facta non fuit talis, quomodo solebat esse expressarum heresum, sed fuit prohibitio in scolis determinando vel legendo vel alias dogmatizando talia asserendi; turn quia quidam sunt manifeste falsi, turn quia quidam sunt veritati philosophice devii, turn quia quidam sunt erroribus intolerabilibus proximi, turn quia quidam sunt apertissime iniqui, quia fidei catholice repugnantes” (Ehrle, Paul, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Scholastik,” Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 5 [1889]: 603–35, at 614).Google Scholar

61 Magnus, Gregorius, Regulae pastoralis liber , part II, ch. 4.Google Scholar

62 “… aliqui minus periti et simplices reputant sic exponentes excommunicatos … et tales simplices bonos et graves tanquam notatos de excommunicatione et errore cancellario vel episcopo deferunt. Et plura inconvenientia et Schismata [et] ex hoc inter studentes oriuntur” (de Fontaines, Godefroid, Quodlibet XII, Quaestio 5, ed. Hoffmans, J. [Louvain, 1932], 102).Google Scholar

63 This has been well pointed out by Leff, , “Trivium,” 324, but is rarely taken into account in the interpretation of such texts.Google Scholar

64 On student-fees at the University of Paris, see Post, Gaines, “Masters' Salaries and Student-Fees in the Medieval Universities,” Speculum 7 (1932): 181–98. It is worth noting that in this respect medieval European universities were much closer to their modern counterparts in the United States than those in most European countries today. Most American academics have no problem accepting that students have a great deal of power over what gets taught, and even in the composition of faculties.Google Scholar

65 Van Steenberghen, , Philosophie au xiii^e siècle , 85, 96.Google Scholar

66 For an interesting discussion of the different types of student present in the university, and the situating of masters in relation to these, see Schwinges, , “Student education,” 196–200.Google Scholar

67 That he invented this doctrine is suggested by de Libera, “Philosophie et censure,” 83; and Van Steenberghen, , Philosophie au xiii^e siècle , 349, 363.Google Scholar

68 “… per rationem concludo de necessitate, quod intellectus est unus numero; firmiter tamen teneo oppositum per fidem” (Aquinas, , De unitate intellectus , § 123).Google Scholar

69 “That the creation is not possible, although the opposite must be believed according to faith.” Google Scholar

70 “That the separated soul is not subject to change according to philosophy, although it does undergo change according to faith.” Google Scholar

71 “That the natural philosopher should deny the creation of the world in an absolute sense, since he relies on natural reasons and causes. The believer, however, can deny the eternity of the world, since he relies on supernatural causes.” Google Scholar

72 “Heterodox Aristotelianism” is the terminology proposed by Van Steenberghen ( Philosophie au xiii^e siècle , 354–59).Google Scholar

73 As Van Steenberghen points out, there is no reason to believe that Siger was anything other than a sincere believer (ibid., 350).Google Scholar

74 “Quod homo ordinatus quantum ad intellectum et affectum, sicut potest sufficienter esse per virtutes intellectuales et alias morales de quibus loquitur philosophus in ethicis, est sufficienter dispositus ad felicitatem eternam.” Google Scholar

75 Mahoney, Edward P., “Reverberations of the Condemnation of 1277 in Later Mediaeval and Renaissance Philosophy,” in Nach der Verurteilung von 1277 , 902–30. See also Thijssen, , “What Really Happened?”.Google Scholar