## 1. The events leading up to March 7, 1277



The traditional picture of the events leading to Bishop
Tempier's condemnation looks something like this. On January 18,
1277 Pope John XXI informed Stephen Tempier, Bishop of Paris, in a
letter that he had heard rumors of heresy and charged him with the
task of examining (*facias inspici vel inquiri*) where and by
whom these errors had been disseminated (CUP 1: 541). On March 7,
1277, Bishop Tempier published his list of 219 theological and
philosophical theses (*articuli*) and of some books that were
condemned. Anyone teaching or listening to the listed errors would be
excommunicated, unless they turned themselves in to the bishop or the
chancellor within seven days, in which case the bishop would inflict
proportionate penalties (CUP 1: 543).



Since this papal letter precedes Tempier's condemnation, it has
been generally assumed that Tempier acted on papal initiative, and
moreover, acted in an overzealous and hasty way. In his letter, the
pope merely requested Tempier to investigate rumors of false teaching,
whereas the latter responded by drawing up a list of 219 false
propositions. Furthermore, only about six weeks elapsed between the
papal instructions and Tempier's publication of this list, a
list which has been characterized by historians as repetitious and
disorderly.



Unfortunately, the chain of events leading up to Tempier's
condemnation still is not totally clear. If Tempier, indeed, acted on
a papal mandate, it is surprising that he does not mention it in the
introduction to his syllabus of errors, but merely indicates that he
had received information from important people (Who these
"important people" may have been is a question that will
be addressed below).



Another puzzling aspect concerning the course of events sketched above
is the papal letter "*Flumen aquae vivae*" of April
28, 1277, that is, more than forty days after Tempier had promulgated
his list of condemned articles. Curiously enough, this letter gives no
indication whatsoever that the pope knew about Tempier's action.
On the contrary, the pope grants a mandate to Tempier to notify him,
the pope, about new errors, and to inform him about the names of the
propagators of these errors, about their followers, and about their
writings. Pope John's second letter is a further specification
of his first: he now indicates the culprits, namely "some
scholars of arts and in the faculty of theology at Paris"
(*nonnulli tam in artibus quam in theologica facultate studentes
Parisius*). In addition, its purpose is more focused. The pope
will use the dossier that he has requested from the bishop to
establish - with the help of an advisory committee - the
nature of the errors and to decide whether they will have to be
recanted, or condemned and whether the University of Paris will need
to be reformed.



In short, the evidence also allows another scenario, namely that
Tempier did not act on the pope's instigation, but was already
in the process of preparing his condemnation when he received the
papal letter of January 18, 1277. In this scenario of events, the
papal letter *Flumen aquae vivae* crossed the letter in which
Tempier announced the condemnation.


## 2. The juridical context of Tempier's condemnation



Tempier's condemnation is only one of the approximately sixteen
lists of censured theses that were issued at the University of Paris
during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Most of these lists of
propositions were put together into systematic collections of
prohibited articles. One of the earliest of these collections of
medieval condemned articles originated towards the end of the
thirteenth century under the name of Parisian Articles or also
*Collectio errorum in anglia et parisius condempnatorum*.
Initially this collection consisted of twenty-two chapters presenting
the errors condemned in 1277 by Archbishop Robert Kilwardby at Oxford,
in 1241 by Bishop William of Alvernia in Paris, and in 1270 and 1277
by Bishop Stephen Tempier in Paris (in this order).



During the fourteenth century, this Collection grew significantly, so
that, in fact, a second, augmented Collection came into existence. All
the propositions that were added to the first compilation had been
condemned in the fourteenth century at the University of Paris. It can
be seen as a collection of verdicts, which at the opening of each new
set of verdicts provides information about the parties involved and
the date. The verdicts are not motivated, nor does the collection
provide an account of the events (*narratio*).



The collection of Parisian Articles must have had some kind of
official status, and must have circulated among medieval scholars.
Bachelors in theology were required by oath not to maintain anything
"in favor of articles that have been condemned at the Roman
curia or in Paris." Moreover, many medieval philosophical and
theological texts contain references to and quotations from the
"Parisian articles," which by no means should always be
identified with Tempier's list of condemned articles.



If one compares Tempier's 1277 syllabus to the other lists of
errors assembled in the compilation of Parisian Articles two features
stand out, namely the anonymity of its targets and its promulgation by
a bishop. Tempier does not specify the persons behind the false views,
but merely states that the errors were disseminated by "certain
scholars at the faculty of arts." The other condemnations,
however, all concern specific scholars whose names are explicitly
mentioned in the *Collectio errorum*. In addition, it is one of
the few censures in which a bishop was involved right from the start,
and not, for instance, at a later stage of the proceedings as judge of
an appeal.



In his introductory letter to the syllabus of errors, Tempier
indicates that he responded to information received from important
people (*magnarum et gravium personarum crebra zeloque fidei
accensa insinuavit relatio*). The allegations were that
"some scholars of arts at Paris" (*nonnulli Parisius
studentes in artibus*) had been transgressing the limits of their
own faculty (*proprie facultatis limites excedentes*). In all
likelihood, this complaint stemmed from theological circles.



In his introductory letter, Tempier also reports that he sought the
advice "not only of the doctors of Sacred Scripture, but also of
other wise men" (*tam doctorum sacrae Scripturae, quam
aliorum prudentium virorum communicato consilio*). From other
cases of suspect teaching we know that the task of the theologians was
to examine certain works and draw up a list of errors. In cases where
a list of alleged errors already existed, the theologians were charged
with assessing the degree of error of the listed propositions. The
theologian John of Pouilly reports that sixteen masters of theology
were Tempier's assessors for the condemnation. One of the
members of the commission was Henry of Ghent, as he himself testifies
in his *Quodlibet* II. It is unknown when these masters met,
but it must have been after Henry of Ghent had become a regent master
in theology, a position that he obtained in 1276. That there were some
tensions between Tempier and the theologians is attested by Giles of
Rome, a contemporary witness of the events of 1277: he claimed that
some articles were condemned not on the basis of the advice of the
masters, but rather due to the "obstinacy of a few." This
observation has been taken to concern Tempier, but it might also have
included some of the "wise men" who had assisted him.



The identity of these other wise men is unknown. Since, however, they
are so clearly distinguished from the theologians, they have to be
sought among the prelates. Of these, only the involvement of the
chancellor, John of Alleux, is directly substantiated by the textual
evidence: the introductory letter to Tempier's condemnation
stipulated that offenders had to report either to the bishop himself
or to the chancellor. Other likely candidates are Simon of Brion, the
papal legate, and Ranulph of Houblonnire, Tempier's future
successor as bishop of Paris.



In addition, mention should be made of the possible role of the
inquisitor of France, Simon du Val. On November 23, 1276 he had
summoned three ex-scholars from Paris, now residing in Liege,
to appear before his court "probably and gravely suspect of the
crime of heresy" (*de crimine heresis probabiliter et
vehementer suspectos*). They were Siger of Brabant, canon at Saint
Paul's, and Goswin of Chapelle and Bernier of Nivelles, canons
at Saint Martin's, all in Liege. At least one of them,
Siger of Brabant, was also implicated in Tempier's condemnation
(see below). Although there is no firm textual evidence, it is
tempting to speculate that the inquisitor's dossier concerning
these three arts masters was known to Bishop Tempier.


## 3. What was condemned?



The condemnation of 1277 not only covered the already mentioned
syllabus of 219 errors, but also the work "*De
amore*" by Andreas Capellanus, a treatise on geomancy with
the incipit "*Estimaverunt Indi*" and the explicit
"*Racionare ergo super eum, et invenies*, etc."
- which has not yet been identified - and unnamed
treatises on necromancy, witchcraft, or fortune-telling.



Of interest to historians of philosophy is the list of censured
propositions. It is unknown what method Tempier and his advisers used
to draw up their syllabus of 219 errors. Usually, it is claimed that
Tempier's list not very well organised and "broad in scope
to the point of confusion." However, the lack of doctrinal
cohesion is also present in other lists of the *Collectio
errorum*, simply because the order in which the charged errors
appeared on the roll was determined by other factors such as, for
instance, the order in which they appeared in the examined work.
Shortly after 1277 the extremely long list of 219 prohibited views was
reorganized, possibly to facilitate its use in the academic community.
At the beginning of this century, Pierre Mandonnet once again put
Tempier's articles into a new order, numbering and
distinguishing the 179 philosophical theses from the 40 theological
ones.



A very helpful summary of the condemned propositions has been provided
by John F. Wippel. The first seven of the philosophical propositions
bear on the nature and excellence of philosophy. Propositions 8
through 12 (in the numbering of Mandonnet) have a bearing on the
knowability and nature of God. Propositions 13-15 concern divine
knowledge, and 16 through 26 divine omnipotence. Many of the articles,
notably 34-61 regard the separate intelligences (angels).
Another interesting group of articles is 67-69. By condemning
these articles, Tempier endorsed God's absolute power to do
whatever he wills. Other interesting themes that are touched in the
philosophical articles are the world's eternity (80 through 89),
the unicity of the human intellect and its implications (117 through
133), and human freedom and free will (151 through 166). Among the
theological articles, themes that appear are theology as a science
(180-186), the doctrine of the Eucharist (196-199),
Christian morality (202-205), and human immortality and reward
and punishment in the life to come (213-219). It should be
emphasized that Tempier's theses express positions that cannot
be maintained in light of revealed truth; for this reason, each is
followed by the qualification, "*error*".



Recently, Sylvain Piron has argued that Tempier's list of
condemned articles does exhibit an encyclopedic organization, which
suggests that Tempier had a deliberate plan. Articles 25-183 can
be divided into sub-sections which respectively touch upon the topics
of God, angels, the world, the soul, the intellect, the will,
philosophy, the will again (due to the misplacement of a rubric), and
ethics. The same global order is also present in articles 1-24.
The final articles, 184-219, seem to be a miscellaneous
collection. Possibly, Tempier's list actually consists of three
separate lists.


## 4. Who was condemned on March 7, 1277?



The question of who the targets were of Tempier's condemnation
cannot be entirely separated from the question of what views were
censured. As was mentioned above, Tempier did not identify the targets
of his condemnation, but merely indicated that it was directed against
unspecified members of the arts faculty in Paris. Even though their
names appear nowhere in the document itself (and in the rubrics of
only two of the many medieval manuscripts which have preserved
Tempier's condemnation), Siger of Brabant and Boethius of Dacia
have been singled out as the most prominent targets of the 1277
censure.



Yet, their identification should be qualified, as becomes clear from
the results, or should one say lack of results, of the ground-breaking
study by Roland Hissette. He tried to identify the proximate
background of the 219 condemned theses. As his point of departure,
Hissette took known works by Siger and Boethius and three anonymous
writings from the arts faculty that were available in a modern edition
at the time that he wrote his study. From Hissette's own summary
of the results of his careful examination it appears that surprisingly
few of the censured propositions could be identified with any degree
of certainty in the known works of thirteenth-century
*artistae*. Of the 219 propositions, only 79 can be identified,
with various degrees of probability, in the works of Siger of Brabant,
Boethius of Dacia, or the three anonymous writings. Of 72 propositions
the attribution is uncertain, whereas 68 propositions could not be
identified at all. Moreover, many censured propositions that seem to
have been derived from the examined works that originated at the arts
faculty in the thirteenth century do not really represent the
author's own view, but rather appear to be quotations or
paraphrases from Aristotle, from Arabic philosophers, or from
"the philosophers" as Hissette himself indicates.



Hissette's examination was based on the assumption that
Tempier's censure envisioned only teachings from the faculty of
arts. The introductory letter, however, seems to contradict this
assumption. There, Tempier draws an important distinction, which has
not been duly recognized in the scholarly literature, between
propagators and views. He accuses the members of the arts faculty of
disseminating (*tractare et disputare*) manifest and damned
errors (*manifesti et exsecrabiles errores*). The errors are
specified in the roll or leaves connected to the introductory letter
(*in rotulo seu cedulis, praesentibus hiis annexo seu
annexis*). They are the 219 censured propositions. Tempier does
not state, however, that the members of the arts faculty are the
*authors* of these errors. In his introductory letter Tempier
separates the 219 censured errors from their propagators. Only the
propagators have to be sought in the arts faculty in Paris: on pain of
excommunication, they are prohibited to dogmatize, disseminate, or
sustain in any way (*dogmatizare, aut defendere seu sustinere
quoquo modo*) the propositions collected by Tempier. The origin of
these propositions, however, is not stated in the introductory letter.
In other words, Tempier indicates that those *artistae* who
were castigated for disseminating false teachings were not necessarily
disseminating their *own* views. When drawing up the syllabus,
Tempier and his advisers relied on more sources, written or oral, than
those that were used by Hissette. Possibly, Tempier's list even
included earlier lists of suspect views.



The inconclusiveness of Hissette's study strongly suggests that
research into the proximate background of the censured propositions
has to be broadened. The directions that such research should take are
indicated, either implicitly or explicitly, by Roland Hissette, and by
other scholars such as John Wippel and Calvin Normore. Today it is
generally agreed that a considerable number of the 219 censured
propositions have a bearing on the reintroduction of pagan philosophy
into the arts faculty, and on the ensuing crisis over the relation of
faith and reason. Consequently, Greek or Arabic sources may prove to
be at the origin of a number of censured propositions, as is also
suggested in Tempier's preface, in which he indicated that the
scholars whose errors he condemned took their inspiration from pagan
writings (*cum errores praedictos gentilium scripturis
muniant*), Other propositions may well have been derived from the
teaching of theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas. In particular, John
Wippel has argued (against Roland Hissette) that Aquinas'
teaching was also implied in Tempier's condemnation and that
some of the positions were taken from his writings. In this respect,
the oft-quoted statement from Tempier's introductory letter that
members of the arts faculty were transgressing the limits of their own
faculty (*propriae facultatis limites excedentes*) could
acquire new meaning. Some members of the arts faculty were rebuked not
only for teaching suspect philosophical views but also for teaching
suspect theological views.



Another, complementary, line of inquiry has been suggested by Malcolm
De Mowbray. According to him, many of the theses may have originated
from students during disputations in the schools. Given the oral
character of these exercises, it is only natural that they are
difficult to trace in extant works from masters of arts. Evidence for
his interpretation has De Mowbray found in Boethius of Dacia's
*De aeternitate mundi*, which, according to him, was meant to
help students to hold a disputation. Much of De Mowbray's
interpretation hinges on our understanding of the Preface of
Tempier's condemnation, which mentions some people at the
arts-faculty (*nonnulli Parisius studentes in artibus*) who had
discussed and disputed the condemned articles in the schools (*in
scolis tractare et disputare presumunt, ut eis nescient
respondere*). His interpretation has been contested by Luca
Bianchi.



Recently, Anthony Minnema has pointed out that article 112 (Mandonnet
63), which mentions a camel, refers to a discussion of the
soul's power of impression in the Latin translation of
al-Ghazali's Maqasidal-falasifa.



On the basis of textual evidence provided by John of Naples, Maria
Evelina Malgieri has suggested an improved text of article 156
(Mandonnet 79): "Quod si caelum staret ignis non ageret in
stupam, quia nec Deus esset," rather than "quia natura
deest," which was the traditional reading. This amendation is
also supported by some manuscripts of Tempier's
condemnation.


## 5. The doctrinal significance of Tempier's condemnation



Tempier's condemnation has often been depicted as the most
dramatic and significant doctrinal censure in the history of the
University of Paris, and a landmark in the history of medieval
philosophy and theology. Yet, the doctrinal significance of the
condemnation has received very diverse assessments. Since the
appearance of the studies by Pierre Mandonnet and Fernand van
Steenberghen, Tempier's condemnation has come to be associated
with the opposition between faith and reason, caused by the
introduction of newly translated philosophical sources in the Latin
West, in particular Aristotle and his commentator Averroes. Studies
which present Tempier's condemnation as a response to
"Averroism" or to "radical Aristotelianism,"
follow this line of interpretation.



This interpretation is often associated with the view that
Tempier's action was a symptom of an already existing opposition
to rationalism, that is, against philosophical research pursued
without concern for Christian orthodoxy. Evidence of the presence of
rationalist tendencies at the University of Paris was found in certain
articles of Tempier's syllabus, or in the prefatory letter in
which Tempier expounded his notion of double truth. According to
Tempier, some scholars maintained that certain views were true
according to philosophy, but not according to Catholic faith,
"as if there were two contrary truths, and as if against the
truth of Sacred Scripture, there is truth in the sayings of the
condemned pagans."



The so-called theory of double truth has been the source of much
confusion. Nowadays, scholars agree that there were no medieval
authors who entertained the philosophically absurd theory that two
contradictory propositions - one derived from philosophical
investigation, the other from Christian revelation--can both be true
at the same time. Rather, Tempier's reproach should be taken as
an attempt to ridicule the hermeneutical practice of commentators to
evaluate a doctrine (for instance Aristotle's) from a
philosophical point of view ("philosophically speaking")
and from faith. In reality, however, medieval scholars generally
supposed that in cases of conflict between reason and faith, the truth
was always on the side of the faith.



In more recent times, the idea that Tempier's condemnation was a
symptom of the existence of rationalist currents at the University of
Paris, in the sense of the emergence of philosophy as an autonomous
discipline vis-a-vis divine revelation, has been further
developed by scholars such as Alain de Libera, Kurt Flasch, and Luca
Bianchi. Although there are differences in detail and in emphasis,
they view Tempier's action as an attempt to curb the concept of
philosophy as a comprehensive doctrine of natural knowledge aimed at
the attainment of happiness here in this life, rather than after
death. Their studies about the significance of Tempier's
condemnation also address fundamental questions about the nature of
philosophy in the Middle Ages.



In the historiography of medieval science, the views of Pierre Duhem,
have proven to be extremely influential. Duhem believed that Tempier,
with his insistence of God's absolute power, had liberated
Christian thought from the dogmatic acceptance of Aristotelianism, and
in this way marked the birth of modern science. Especially articles 39
and 49 played a pivotal role in his eyes. Duhem's thesis has
opened up the historiography of medieval science as a serious academic
discipline. Yet, at the same time, no one in the field any longer
endorses his view that modern science started in 1277. Of contemporary
historians of science, Edward Grant probably comes closest to
Duhem's vision, though his view includes many refinements and
historical materials that were unknown to Duhem.



In any case, it is clear that the condemnation did have an impact on
scholars at the university. Peter of Auvergne, for instance, wrote two
sets of questions on Aristotle's De caelo, one of which was
posterior to Tempier's condemnation. There, Peter of Auvergne
changed his views on such crucial issues as the world's
eternity, the animation of the heavens and the existence of an
infinite multitude.


## 6. Tempier's other 1277 condemnations



Although Tempier's action of March 7, 1277 is best known in the
historiography of philosophy, mention should also be made of two
additional doctrinal investigations of 1277 that are attributed to
Bishop Tempier. The first one concerned the theologian Giles of Rome,
and was concluded before March 28, 1277 with the censure of fifty-one
propositions taken from Giles's commentary on the
*Sentences*. The second doctrinal inquiry was aimed against
Thomas Aquinas. It was begun after Giles's censure, but still
before March 28, 1277. According to Robert Wielockx, the inquiry
against Thomas Aquinas was never completed. Basing his conclusions on
evidence provided in a letter by John Pecham, Wielockx claimed that
during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, sometime between May 20 and
November 25, 1277, Tempier received orders from the curia to stop his
investigation.



Wielockx's thesis of a separate process against Thomas Aquinas
has been generally accepted in the scholarly literature. However,
recently the historical evidence has been reexamined and his
interpretation been questioned by John Wippel and Hans Thijssen, the
latter in the context of a substantially revised account of the
juridical procedures against Giles of Rome.