John F. Wippel THOMAS AQUINAS AND T HE CONDEMNATION OF 1277 ON March 7, 1277, Stephen Tempier, Bishop of Paris, issued a massive condemnadon of 219 propositions along with the threatened excommunica tion of all who taught or even heard these propositions being taught unless they presented themselves to him or to the Chancellor (of the University) within seven days.^ These were strong measures indeed, and one would assume that there were compelling reasons for the Bishop to take such action. 1. Introduction For the sake of historical context, it will be helpful for us to recall that in the second half of the twelfth century and throughout most of the thirteenth century wide-ranging translation of texts both from Arabic and from Greek into Latin had made available to the Christian West a vast body of philosophical and scientific literature to which that world had previously not had access. The newly translated sources included practically all of Aristotle's works which are known to us, a series of classical commentaries on Aristotle, important pseudo- Aristotelian works such as the Liber de causis, philosophical writings originally written in Arabic by thinkers such as Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Avicenna and Averroes along with Moses Maimonides' Guide and Avicebron's Fons vitae, and a host of previously unknown scientific and mathematical works. Upon being faced so speedily with so much literature of non-Christian origins, Latin thinkers and Churchmen had to react quickly, and to try to determine how believing Christians should respond. Needless to say, their reactions varied considerably.^ Thus early in the century some defensive measures were taken by ecclesias tical authorities at Paris in 1210 and 1215 for the newly founded University there. A councU held in 1210 and new statutes for the Faculty of Arts promulgated in 1215 by the Papal Legate prohibited "reading" Aristode's libri naturales, his Metaphysics, and Commentaries or Summae of the same. The expression "reading" as used in these prohibitions is to be taken in the sense of lecturing. The commentaries or Summae referred to were probably Avicenna's paraphrases and possibly some works by Al-Farabi. Private consultation of these works was not prohibited. Moreover, the prohibition did not apply to the Theology Faculty, but only to Arts.^ Other warning letters were issued in the late 1220s and early in the 1230s by Pope Gregory IX, cautioning masters of Theology at Paris against relying too The Modern Schoolman, LXXII, January/March 1995 233 heavily on philosophy in their teaching and continuing to prohibit Masters of Arts from using the libri naturales until they had been freed from every suspicion of error. Presumably many Masters in Theology were using the newly translated sources. In any event, the ban on lecturing on Aristotle's libri naturales in the Arts Faculty appears to have been observed at least until ca. 1240; but by 1245 we know that Roger Bacon did lecture on them at Paris.'* And by 1250 Aristode was firmly in place in both Arts and Theology at Paris, so much so in fact that the Statutes of 1255 for Arts required reading all of the known works of Aristotle.^ 'For the text see H. Denifle and A. Chate the libri naturales until they were purged of lain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis I every suspicion of error, see the Pope's letter (Paris, 1889), pp. 543-58; also, but in a sys of April 13, 1231 (Chartularium, p. 138, n. tematic rearrangement, in P. Mandonnet, Si- 79). For the letter of April 23, 1231, establish ger de Brabant et VAverro'isme latin au Xllle ing a commission charged with this task which siecle, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Louvain: Institut Su- was never completed, see Chartularium I, pp. perieur de Philosophie de L'Universite, 1911, 143-44, n. 87. On all of this see Van Steen 1908), Vol. 2, pp. 175-91. For the threat of berghen, La philosophie, pp. 93-101; Grab¬ excommunication see the Prologue (p. 176 in mann, c. 2, pp. 70-108. On Bacon see Van Mandonnet ed., which I shall follow here). Steenberghen, pp. 130-34. ^On the newly translated philosophical liter 5See Chartularium I, pp. 277-79, n. 246. ature see B. Dod, "Aristoteles Latinus," c. 2, ^n Albert's role see Van Steenberghen, La in The Cambridge History of Later Medieval philosophie, pp. 245-75, and A. de Libera, Philosophy, N. Kretzmann, A. Kenny, J. Pin Albert le Grand et la philosophie (Paris: J. borg, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Vrin, 1990). On Radical Aristotelianism see Press, 1982), pp. 45-79; R Van Steen- Van Steenberghen, Thomas Aquinas and Rad berghen. La philosophie au XIIIe siecle, 2nd ical Aristotelianism (Washington, D.C.: The ed. (Louvain-la-Neuve: Editions de 1'Institut Catholic University of America Press, 1980). Superieur de Philosophie/Louvain-Paris: Edi On the Condemnation of 1270 (and 1277) see tions Peeters, 1991), pp. 67-107. On the Ara Wippel, "The Condemnations of 1270 and bic-Latin translations now also see H. Daiber, 1277 at Paris," The Journal of Medieval and "Lateinische Übersetzungen arabischer Texte Renaissance Studies 1 (1911), pp. 169-201; zur Philosophie und ihre Bedeutung für die Van Steenberghen, Maitre Siger de Brabant Scholastik des Mittelalter. Stand und Aufgabe (Louvain: Publications Universitaires/Paris: der Forschung," in Rencontres de cultures Vander-Oyez, S.A., 1977), pp. 74-79. dans la philosophie medievale. Traductions et ''Chartularium I, pp. 486-87, n. 432. traducteurs de VAntiquite tardive au XlVe si "For Siger's pre-1270 views on unicity of the ede, J. Hamesse and M. Fattori, eds. (Lou- (possible) intellect see his In III De Anima, q. vain-la-Neuve: Institut d'Etudes Medievales/ 9, in Siger de Brabant, Quaestiones in Tertium Cassino: Universitä degli Studi, 1990), pp. de anima, De anima intellectiva, De aeterni- 103-50. tate mundi, B. Bazan, ed. (Louvain: Publica ^For the text of the synod of 1210 see Char tions Universitaires/Paris: Beatrice-Nauwe- tularium I, p. 70, n. II; for the Statutes of laerts, 1972), pp. 25-30; see q. 11 (pp. 31-35) 1215 see pp. 78-9, n. 20. On this see M. on whether the separated soul can suffer from Grabmann, / divieti ecclesiastici di Aristotele fire. On his defense of eternity of the human sotto Innocenzo III e Gregorio IX (Rome: species and hence, presumably, of the world, Typis Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, see his "Quaestio utrum haec sit vera: homo est 1941), c. 1; Van Steenberghen, La philoso animal, nullo homine existente," in Siger de phie. . . , pp. 82-9. Brabant. Ecrits de logique, de morale et de ^¥oT the letter from the Pope of July 7, 1228, physique, B. Bazan, ed. (Louvain: Publica warning the theologians, see Chartularium I, tions Universitaires/Paris: Beatrice-Nauwe- pp. 114-16, n. 59 (also in Grabmann, pp. 72¬ laerts, 1974), especially pp. 56-9. 75). For the reaffirmation of the prohibition of ^Chartularium I, p. 487. 234 During this period Albert the Great contributed gready to winning a favorable reception for Aristode. He served at Paris from ca. 1240 or 1243 as Bachelor of Theology and then as Master undl 1248. And his student, Thomas Aquinas, would also do much for Aristode's cause. He served as Bachelor and then as Master of Theology at Paris from 1252-1259 and again as Master from 1269-1272. During the 1260s, however, another form of Aristotelianism developed within the Arts Faculty, known by some as Ladn Averroism, but better styled, in my opinion, as Radical Aristotelianism.^ 2. The Condemnation of 1270 Accordingly in December 1270 the Bishop of Paris condemned thirteen propositions and excommunicated all who would knowingly defend or teach them. At least four of these may be found in writings by the Arts Master, Siger of Brabant, which date from before the condemnation of 1270: (1) that the intellect for all human beings is numerically one and the same; (5) that the world is eternal; (6) that there never was a first human being; (8) that the separated soul does not suffer from corporeal fire in the afterlife.^ Of these, only the first, unicity of the intellect, is taught uniquely by Averroes. Closely linked to it, at least in the eyes of a Thomas Aquinas, is pr. 2 — which states that it is false or improper to hold that a, i.e., this individual human being understands — as distinguished from the separated possible intellect that would think in each of us. Personal immortality is rejected by pr. 7, and this, too, would seem to follow from Siger's defense of unicity of the (possible) Intellect. Yet neither of the two last-mentioned propositions is explicidy present in Siger's known surviving works. ^ Other propositions would undermine freedom of choice whether by sub jecting human beings to pure necessity (3), or by reducing the will to the status of a purely passive power that is necessarily moved by its desired object (9). Still others reject God's knowledge of individuals (10), or of things other than himself (11), or divine providence (12), or belief in bodily resurrection (13).^ With this we may turn to St. Thomas's involvement in the events of December 1270 and thereafter. Some time in the year 1270 he directed a special treatise — De unitate intellectus — against a specific movement in Arts to be sure, but also against a particular faculty member. In this tighdy written work Aquinas argues that unicity of the possible intellect cannot be ascribed to Aristode (his historical attack) nor can it be defended philosophically (his philosophical attack). The particular individual whom he appears to have in mind is Siger of Brabant.*^ Thomas Aquinas and the Condemnation of 1277 John F. Wippel 235 Moreover, it is well known that Aquinas defended the doctrine of unicity of substantial form in human beings. There seems to have been considerable opposition to this position within the Theology Faculty already in 1270, and also on the part of Stephen Tempier. Nonetheless, it does not appear in the 1270 list of prohibited propositions. Scholars have long wondered why.** Giles of Lessines directed a letter to Albert the Great, asking him to comment on fifteen errors which were being taught by leading Masters in Arts at that time. Of these fifteen propositions, thirteen are identical with the thirteen propositions condemned by Tempier in 1270. Scholarly opinion is divided as to whether this letter appeared before or after the 1270 condemnation (which seems more likely to me). But even more interesting is the suggestion made by some that the two additional propositions listed by Giles were defended by Aquinas, namely pr. 14: "That the body of Christ which lay in the tomb and which hung upon the cross is not or was not numerically the same in the absolute sense but only in a qualified sense"; and pr. 15: "That an angel and the soul are simple, but not by absolute simplicity nor by approaching composition, but only by receding from the supremely simple being." Van Steenberghen, who defends a post-1270 date for the letter, argues that pr. 14 has nothing to do with unicity of substantial form, but I am not completely convinced of this. Thomas does change his terminology in responding to questions related to this issue after the 1270 condemnation. Van Steenberghen also denies that pr. 15 is directed against Thomas, and correcdy so in my opinion. If pr. 14 does reflect Thomas's thought prior to December 1270, it could be that it was his great prestige that prevented unicity of substantial form •''For Thomas's text see De unitate intellec the Bishop and Masters of Paris, including tus contra Averroistas, L.W. Keeler, ed. Aquinas's own Dominican confreres, he alone (Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, stood beside him insofar as he could, until 1957), and Leonine ed.. Vol. 43, pp. 291¬ Aquinas humbly subjected all of his opinions 314. For a general analysis of this treatise see to the Paris Masters. The event to which Van Steenberghen, Thomas Aquinas and Rad Pecham refers took place during Thomas's ical Aristotelianism, pp. 49-59. second regency, presumably around 1270. On "See A. Callebaut, "Jean Pecham, O.F.M. this cf. R. Hissette, "Etienne Tempier et ses et I'augustinisme. Apercus historiques (1263- condamnations," Recherches de Theologie 1285)," Archivum Franciscanum Historicum ancienne et medievale 47 (1980), p. 233 and 18 (1925), pp. 445-47, where he reports on n. 11. different letters written by Pecham in 1284¬ ^^For Albert's response (including Giles's 1285. In a letter of January 1, 1285, Pecham letter and the list of propositions) see his De recalls that Aquinas held the view that there is XVProblematibus, B. Geyer, ed.. Opera om only one form in a human being, but notes that nia. Vol. 17, Pt. 1 (Cologne, 1975). Seep. 31: he (Pecham) had personally heard Aquinas pr. 14 ("Quod corpus Christi iacens in se- declare his innocence at Paris before the Mas pulchro et positum in cruce non est vel non fuit ters (of Theology) and submit all of his views idem numero simpliciter, sed secundum to their judgment and correction. And in a quid"); pr. 15 ("Quod angelus et anima sunt letter of June 1 to the Bishop of Lincoln, simplices, sed non absoluta simplicitate nec Pecham comments that when this position per accessum ad compositionem, sed tantum (unity of form) was being sharply attacked by per recessum a summo simplici"). 236 from being included in the List of 1270. It will be recalled that he was himself present in Paris undl 1272. And if this posidon had not originally been targeted for condemnadon, one wonders why Giles included it on his list.'^ 3. The Condemnation of 1277 Be that as it may, various signs indicate that the Radical Aristotelian movement was still very much alive in the 1270s as we move on towards 1277. In addidon to Giles of Lessines's letter to Albert (dadng perhaps from ca. 1273¬ 1276, according to Van Steenberghen), Giles of Rome's De plurificatione intellectus possibilis seems to have appeared in the mid-1270s. It is another sign of continuing preoccupation with the theory of unicity of the possible intellect. Some anonymous Commentaries on Aristotle's De anima and Physics dating from this same general period also contain views which would be condemned in nil.'' Bonaventure's Collationes in Hexaemeron of 1273 also illustrate his concern about various errors of Aristotle and those whom he calls the "Arabs." These errors include Aristotle's rejection of divine ideas, and, following from this, his rejection of divine knowledge of individuals, divine providence, and divine knowledge of contingents. Bonaventure also cites the Arabs' defense of a necessitating fate, and Aristotle's omission of reward and punishment in the life to come. Bonaventure is also concerned about defenses of eternity of the world and unicity of the intellect, apparendy by his contemporaries, i.e., by certain members of the Arts Faculty of that time.'^ On January 18, 1277, Pope John XXI, known to most today as Peter of Spain, wrote to Bishop Tempier and asked him to conduct an inquiry about dangerous doctrines which were reported to be circulating at the University. Stephen was to determine by whom and where these errors were being propagated, and to report back to the Pope as soon as possible.'^ Instead, Stephen formed a Commission of sixteen theologians, including Henry of Ghent, and had a list of 219 propositions drawn up quickly. Without reporting his findings back to the Pope, he issued his condemnation of March 7, 1277, on his own authority.*^ Much study has been devoted to this Condemnation, beginning especially at the time of its 700th anniversary in 1977, and continuing to the present. Important books have been produced by R. Hissette, L. Bianchi, and K. Flasch, along with many articles and book-chapters by others. Still, many questions remain to be answered.** For instance, many of the prohibited propositions clearly attack orthodox Thomas Aquinas and the Condemnation of 1277 John F. Wippel 237 Christian belief. Nonetheless, other condemned propositions appear to us today to be perfecdy orthodox and we wonder why they were prohibited. Indeed, a number of the latter have been thought by many to have been defended by Thomas Aquinas. So true is this that Godfrey of Fontaines, writing ca. 1296/ 1297, publicly defended Aquinas's doctrine and memory and called for the then reigning Bishop of Paris to at least suspend the censure attached to those which '^For his argumentation for the post-1270 Quodlibet IV Thomas insists more on the iden dating see Van Steenberghen, "Le 'De quin- tity of the living and dead body of Christ. Cf. decim problematibus' d'Albert le Grand," also J.-P. Torrell, Initiation ä saint Thomas repr. in his Introduction ä I'etude de la philo d'Aquin (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires de sophie medievale (Louvain: Publications Uni Fribourg/Paris: Cerf, 1993), pp. 276-77. versitaires/Paris: Beatrice-Nauwelaerts, Hence I would now qualify my earlier accep 1974), pp. 454-55. On propositions 14 and 15 tance of Van Steenberghen's view in my 1977 see pp. 450-53. As regards pr. 14, Van Steen article, "The Condemnations of 1270 and berghen acknowledges that Thomas's termi 1277. . . ," pp. 182-83, and am inclined to nology changes after 1270. Thus questions think that proposition 14 as cited by Giles related to this were directed at Thomas in could well have been directed against quodlibetal disputations in Lent, 1269 (Quod Aquinas's pre-December 1270 formulation. libet I, q. 4, a. 1), Advent, 1269 (Quodlibet II, ''*0n this see Van Steenberghen, Maitre Si q. 1, a. 1), Lent, 1270 (Quodlibet III, q. 2, a. ger, pp. 115-18. Also see Trois commentaires 2), and after the December 1270 Condemna anonymes sur le Traite de l'äme dAristote, M. tion, in Lent, 1271 (Quodlibet IV, q. 5, a. 1). Giele, F Van Steenberghen, B. Bazan, eds. Suffice it to note that in Quodlibet II, q. 1, a. (Louvain: Publications Universitaires/Paris: 1, in replying to the question whether Christ Beatrice-Nauwelaerts, 1971), pp. 15-16, for was numerically the same man during the the date of the first work, which contains some sacrum triduum as before, Thomas responds views on the intellect which would be con that, viewed from the side of his human na demned in 1277. Also see an anonymous com ture, Christ's soul remained numerically one mentary on the Physics ed. by A. Zimmer and the same. His body remained one and the mann, Ein Kommentar zur Physik des same by reason of its matter, but not by reason Aristoteles (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1968), of its form. Hence we cannot say that it was pp. xiii-xiv for the dating, and pp. xxvii-xxix one and the same in the unqualified sense on its views and the Condemnation of 1277. (simpliciter), or that it was not the same sim Also see the anonymous commentary on the pliciter. Rather it was secundum quid not the Physics edited under Siger's name by Ph. same by reason of its form. But in Quodlibet Delhaye, Siger de Brabant. Questions sur la IV, q. 5, a. 1 (after the condemnation) Thomas Physique d'Aristote (Les Philosophes Beiges, replies that in order to avoid two heresies he Vol. 15, Louvain: Editions de 1'Institut Supe must defend both the identity of Christ's body rieur de Philosophie, 1941), pp. 15-17, on the during its time on the cross and in the tomb by dating and this work's relationship to the Con reason of its continued union with the divine demnation of 1277. suppositum, and the difference between the '^For the two reportationes of these Confer living and dead Christ. Still, because the unity ences which have survived see his Opera under discussion is greater than the diversity, omnia. Vol. 5 (longer version), and S. Bona- we must say that Christ's body in the tomb and venturae Collationes in Hexaemeron et on the cross was numerically one and the Bonaventuriana Quaedam Selecta, F. De- same. Also see ST III, q. 50, a. 5. Cf. R. lorme, ed. (Quaracchi, 1934). See especially Zavalloni, Richard de Mediavilla et la contro- Conference VI (Vol. 5, pp. 360-61, longer verse sur la pluralite des formes (Louvain: version, and Delorme, pp. 91-92). Also see Editions de 1'Institut Superieur de Philoso Conference VII (longer version), p. 365. For phie, 1951), pp. 487-88. Zavalloni describes more on this see Van Steenberghen, Maitre this change as a verbal difference rather than a Siger, pp. 102-11. doctrinal one, but correctly notes that in ^^Chartularium I, p. 541. 238 seemed to have been taken from his writings.'^ Though this step was not taken then, in 1325, some nineteen months after Thomas's canonization, the Bishop of Paris of that time revoked the condemnation of the Paris articles insofar as they "touched on or were asserted to touch on" Thomas's teachings. One could hardly continue to condemn at Paris the views of a recently canonized saint One wonders, of course, why seemingly orthodox positions were con demned by Tempier, and especially, why some defended by Aquinas were. It seems clear that the condemnation of 1277 marked the triumph within the Theology Faculty of a highly conservative group of theologians who were uncomfortable with many of the new developments in philosophy and theology and who were only too ready to recommend them to Tempier for condemnadon. Many of them probably belonged to what Van Steenberghen has styled the Neo- Augustinian group. It is also clear that Tempier himself had little brief for philosophical or theological novelties. Yet, one of Aquinas's most controversial positions — unicity of substantial form in human beings — was still not included in this condemnation, even though it would be condemned only eleven days later at Oxford by Archbishop Robert Kilwardby, a Dominican. Some have suggested that this position was not condemned at Paris in 1277 once more because of Aquinas's great prestige there. If so, why were other positions defended by him included on Tempier's list? And why was unity of form included in another list of propositions drawn up by the theologians at Paris against Giles of Rome within the same month This leads us to the central question for this study. Were any of Thomas's views explicitly and direcdy condemned and targeted by Tempier? Both in medieval times and in our day, many interpreters have thought so. For instance, contemporary critics of Aquinas such as William de la Mare were only too happy to cite the prohibitions against Thomas. On the other hand, some twenty years later Godfrey of Fontaines defended the legitimacy of defending those positions which seemed to have been directed at Thomas and called for the suspension of their censure. As we have just seen, in 1325, some nineteen months after Thomas's canonization, the Bishop of Paris revoked the prohibi tion of those which touched on or were said to touch on his positions. And even before that time, ca. 1315/1316, John of Naples had defended Thomas from the prohibition of a number of these theses. However, in his important book of 1977 and in subsequent articles, Roland Hissette has denied that Thomas himself was a direct target of this prohibition. Hissette is strongly influenced by the Prologue to Tempier's Condemnation in which the Bishop notes that the views in question were circulating in the Arts Faculty at Paris. From this Hissette concludes that we should always look there Thomas Aquinas and the Condemnation of 1277 John F. Wippel 239 in attempting to find defenders of the prohibited propositions. He has concluded that most of the propositions which were previously thought to have been aimed at Thomas were in fact also defended by one or other Master in Arts, and hence that the latter, not Thomas himself, should be regarded as the direct target. He acknowledges that Thomas was indirectly involved because it happened that he, too, defended some of the prohibited propositions along with Masters in Arts. Hissette also acknowledges that Thomas's defense of many of these views was '^See n. 1 above for the Chartularium and 2'On the rise of Neo-Augustinianism see Mandonnet versions. While I shall follow the Van Steenberghen, La philosophie au XIIIe Mandonnet nunribering here, one may find the siecle, pp. 434-39. On the Oxford Condem same with some helpful emendations in His nations by Kilwardby and by John Pecham see sette's book (cited in the following note). D.A. Callus, The Condemnation of St. '*See R. Hissette, Enquete sur les 219 arti Thomas at Oxford. The Aquinas Society of cles condamnes ä Paris le 7 mars 1277 (Lou London (Oxford, 1946); Zavalloni, Richard vain: Publications Universitaires/Paris: Van de Mediavilla . . . , pp. 218-21. For the Con der-Oyez, S.A., 1977); L. Bianchi, // Vescovo demnation of Giles of Rome see Aegidii Ro- e i Filosofi. La condanna Parigina del 1277 e mani Opera Omnia III.I. Apologia, ed. and r evoluzione dellAristotelismo scolastico commentary by R. Wielockx (Firenze: Leo S. (Bergamo: Pierluigi Lubrina Editore, 1990); Olschki, 1985), p. 59 (pr. 48: "In quolibet K. Flasch, Aufklärung im Mittelalter? Die composito est una forma"). See his remarks Verurteilung von 1277 (Mainz: Dieterich, concerning Thomas and the prohibition of this 1989); Wippel, Mediaeval Reactions to the proposition on p. 214. Encounter between Faith and Reason, 22The text of Williams's Correctorium is Aquinas Lecture, 1995 (Milwaukee: Mar published along with an early refutation of the quette University Press, 1995). Among the same in Les premieres polemiques thomistes: articles see Hissette, "Etienne Tempier et les I. — Le Correctorium Corruptorii "Quare", menaces contre I'ethique chretienne," Bulle P. Glorieux, ed. (Le Saulchoir, Kain: Revue tin de Philosophie medievale 21 (1979), pp. des Sciences philosophiques et theologiques, 68-72; "Etienne Tempier et ses condamna 1927). For John of Naples see "Quaestio Ma- tions," Recherches de Theologie ancienne et gistri loannis de Neapoli O. Pr. 'Utrum licite medievale 47 (1980), pp. 231-70; "Note sur possit doceri Parisius doctrina fratris Thomae la reaction 'antimoderniste' d'Etienne Tem quantum ad omnes conclusiones eius' hic pri pier," Bulletin de Philosophie medievale 22 mum in lucem edita," by C. Jellouschek, in (1980), pp. 88-97; Wippel, "The Condemna Xenia Thomistica III (1925), pp. 73-104. On tions of 1270 and 1277 at Paris," (published Godfrey and the Bishop's action in 1325 see before Hissette's book). notes 19 and 20 above. '^See his Quodlibet XII, q. 5: "Utrum Epis- ^In addition to his repeated defense of this copus parisiensis peccet in hoc quod omittit view in his book (Enquete), Hissette has ad corrigere quosdam articulos a praedecessore dressed this in detail in his "Albert le Grand et suo condemnatos" {Les Philosophes Beiges V, Thomas d'Aquin dans la censure Parisienne pp. 100-04). On this see my The Metaphysi du 7 mars 1277," in Miscellanea Mediaevalia cal Thought of Godfrey of Fontaines. A Study 15 (1982), pp. 226-46, especially 235, 237¬ in Late Thirteenth-Century Philosophy 41,246. (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University ^See Wippel, Mediaeval Reactions to the of America Press, 1981), pp. 382-85. For the Encounter between Faith and Reason, p. 21. dates of Godfrey's Quodlibets see pp. xxvii- ^For a helpful summarizing table of the xxviii. propositions cited by William's Correctorium, 20For the text of this decree issued by by the anonymous Declarationes (see note 27 Stephen of Bourret, Bishop of Paris in 1325, below), by Godfrey of Fontaines and by John see Chartularium II, pp. 280-81. On this see of Naples see Hissette's "Albert le Grand et Bianchi, // Vescovo . . . , pp. 28-30 and notes; Thomas d'Aquin . . . ," p. 232, n. 41. Torrell, Initiation. . . , p. 475. 240 known to Stephen's Commission. But this does not mean that he was a direct target.'^ Others, however, myself included, have expressed some reservations about this. To me it seems that, if the local Bishop and his commission knew a particular position was defended both by Thomas and by a given Master in Arts and condemned it nonetheless, it is very unlikely that they did not intend to target Thomas as well as that Master. As I have put it elsewhere, to me this seems to be a distinction without a difference. My own reading of Henry of Ghent, himself a member of the Commission, indicates that he was quite familiar with Thomas's thought and did not hesitate to oppose it whenever he saw fit to do so. It is hard to believe that he would not have intended to target Thomas in proposing some of his well known positions for prohibition, or in approving their condemnation. The same is likely to be true of most of the other Masters in the Theology Faculty who served on Tempier's Commission at that time and of Tempier himself.^'* 4. Thomas Aquinas and the Condemnation of 1277 In order to examine this issue more closely, I propose to turn to some of the propositions allegedly defended by Thomas as drawn up by different medieval participants in this discussion in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centu ries, even as Hissette himself has done in a more recent study. I will concentrate on the Franciscan, William de la Mare, the secular Master, Godfrey of Fon taines, and will make some reference to the Dominican, John of Naples. As we shall see, each of these writers had different motives in mind in addressing the issue of Thomas's implication in the condemnation. As we shall also see, there is little unanimity among them concerning which propositions were directed at Thomas himself. To begin, we may turn to William's Correctorium fratris Thomae of ca. 1278. In this work William examines a number of Aquinas's works and singles out from each of them propositions which he judges to be unacceptable from the standpoint of orthodox Christian teaching. Of the 118 objectionable positions he has identified, William maintains that thirteen were condemned by Tempier in 1277, thereby strengthening his case against Aquinas. (William's Correctorium should not be confused with the much more abbreviated work edited by Pelster under the title Declarationes which has often mistakenly been attributed to William and which rejects sixty of Thomas's positions and finds a still greater number of them (32) also condemned by Tempier. Thomas Aquinas and the Condemnation of 1277 John F. Wippel 241 A series of Dominicans quickly responded to William's Correctorium by writing lengthy refutations, known as Corrections of his Corruptorium, and identified by their opening word. The first of these, Quare, was most likely written by the English Dominican, Richard Knap well, who also reproduced the 2^For William's text, along with a refutation eiusdem speciei." of it by Richard of Knapwell, see n. 22 above. ^^Ed. cit., p. 62. Note in particular: "Quod William draws up a list of 118 objectionable vero dicunt damnatum per episcopum et ma- articles from the following Thomistic works: gistros, salva pace eorum non dicunt verum; Summa Theologiae (48 from the Prima Pars, omnes enim doctores in hoc conveniunt quod 12 from the Prima Secundae, 16 from the quae sunt diversarum specierum non possunt Secunda Secundae); De veritate, 9; Disputed in una specie poni stante natura utrius- Question De anima, 10; De virtutibus, 1; De que. . . ." potentia, 4; Quodlibetal Questions, 9; In I "See Enquete, pp. 84-86. Note from Sent., 9. Boethius's reply: "Respondeo tibi etiam "On this see Hissette's review of an article quaerendo: Potestne facere Deus illud, quod by M. Jordan in the Bulletin de Theologie non potest fieri nec esse? Ulterius quaeram: ancienne et medievale {\3) 1983, pp. 484-85, Potestne esse quod aliqua duo in ilia essentia, n. 1099. There Hissette corrects his own ear quae est quodlibet illorum, sint unum per se et lier attribution (see "Albert le Grand . . .") of in eadem essentia etiam sint multa? .... the Declarationes to William himself. For Pel- Quae autem specie distinguuntur, non possunt ster's edition of the Declarationes see De esse sub una specie. . . . Unde rem aliquam clarationes Magistri Guilelmi de la Mare potest Deus total iter auferre, sed rei aliquid 0. F.M. de variis sententiis S. Thomae incompossibile facere non videtur posse. Et Aquinatis (Münster: Aschendorff, 1956). For hoc dico salvo secreto divinae sapientiae, Jordan's article see "The Controversy of the quam nemo novit." {Opera omnia VI. 1, pp. Correctoria and the Limits of Metaphysics," 203-04). In the passages cited above in n. 29 Speculum 57 (1982), pp. 292-314. Thomas repeatedly states that it is impossible ^See n. 22 above. On Richard as its likely for two angels to belong to the same species. author see Jordan, p. 294; Richard Knapwell. Although he does not explicitly connect this Quaestio Disputata De Unitate Formae, F.E. impossibility with the question whether God Kelley, ed. (Binghamton, N.Y.: Center for could bring it to pass nonetheless, he holds Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, that that which is impossible in the absolute 1982), pp. 18-23 (for a strong defense of sense, i.e., that which involves contradiction, Knapwell as the author of Quare). cannot be done at all, and therefore cannot be 29See Hissette, Enquete, p. 83, n. 2, for the done by God. See, for instance, ST I, q. 25, a. following Thomistic sources for this position: 3; Quodlibet XII, q. 2, a. 1; and for a specific In I (read: //) Sent., d. 3, q. 1, a. 4; d. 32, q. 2, application of this to the impossibility of a. 3; In IV Sent., d. 12, q. 1, a. 1, q. 3, ad 3; God's producing matter without any form, SCG II, c. 93; spiritualibus creaturis, a. 8; Quodlibet III, q. 1, a. 1: "Dicere ergo quod Quaestio disputata de anima, a. 3; De ente et materia sit in actu sine forma, est dicere con- essentia, c. 5 (also and especially see c. 4); ST tradictoria esse simul; unde a Deo fieri non 1, q. 50, a. 4; q. 76, a. 2, ad 1. For William see potest" (Marietti ed., p. 40). Because Thomas Glorieux ed., p. 60 (art. 11, taken from ST I, rejects matter-form composition of angels, he q. 50, a. 4, and q. 75, a. 8). flatly denies that it is possible for them to be ^See Glorieux ed. (Le Correctorium Cor multiplied in species. See, for instance, ST I, ruptorii "Quare"), p. 60 (for his presentation q. 76, a. 2, ad 1: "... multi autem angeli of Aquinas's view and his reference to the unius speciei omnino esse non possunt." Yet, Bishop and Masters of Paris), and p. 61 (for it is Boethius's text which explicitly connects his reference to spiritual matter). He also re this impossibility with the issue of God's fers to his fuller discussion of this below in his power, as does proposition 43. Siger also refutation of Thomas's Quaestio disputata de makes this connection in the three passages anima (see art. 88, pp. 365-68). Proposition cited by Hissette (pp. 85-86). As Hissette 43 reads: "Quod quia intelligentiae non ha comments (pp. 84, 86), on this issue Thomas, bent materiam, Deus non posset facere plures Boethius, and Siger share the same view. 242