On March 7, 1277, the Bishop of Paris, Stephen Tempier, prohibited theteaching of 219 philosophical and theological theses that were beingdiscussed and disputed in the faculty of arts under his jurisdiction.Tempier’s condemnation has gained great symbolic meaning in theminds of modern intellectual historians, and possibly for this reason,there is still considerable disagreement about what motivated Tempierto promulgate his prohibition, what exactly was condemned, and who thetargets were. In addition, the effects of Tempier’s action onthe course of medieval thought in the thirteenth and fourteenthcenturies, and even beyond, has been the subject of much debate. Thelack of a commonly accepted standard account of Tempier’sactions plus the enormous amount of literature and of textual evidencethat either directly or indirectly bears on the events of 1277, putsspecific limitations to the present entry. It will be confined topresenting those historical facts that are uncontroversial and toindicating the main issues of current debate with respect toTempier’s condemnation.

• 1. The events leading up to March 7, 1277
• 2. The juridical context of Tempier’s condemnation
• 3. What was condemned?
• 4. Who was condemned on March 7, 1277?
• 5. The doctrinal significance of Tempier’s condemnation
• 6. Tempier’s other 1277 condemnations
• Bibliography
  • Editions and translations
  • Studies
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries

1. The events leading up to March 7, 1277

The traditional picture of the events leading to BishopTempier’s condemnation looks something like this. On January 18,1277 Pope John XXI informed Stephen Tempier, Bishop of Paris, in aletter that he had heard rumors of heresy and charged him with thetask of examining (facias inspici vel inquiri) where and bywhom these errors had been disseminated (CUP 1: 541). On March 7,1277, Bishop Tempier published his list of 219 theological andphilosophical theses (articuli) and of some books that werecondemned. Anyone teaching or listening to the listed errors would beexcommunicated, unless they turned themselves in to the bishop or thechancellor within seven days, in which case the bishop would inflictproportionate penalties (CUP 1: 543).

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

Unfortunately, the chain of events leading up to Tempier’scondemnation still is not totally clear. If Tempier, indeed, acted ona papal mandate, it is surprising that he does not mention it in theintroduction to his syllabus of errors, but merely indicates that hehad received information from important people (Who these“important people” may have been is a question that willbe addressed below).

Another puzzling aspect concerning the course of events sketched aboveis the papal letter “Flumen aquae vivae” of April28, 1277, that is, more than forty days after Tempier had promulgatedhis list of condemned articles. Curiously enough, this letter gives noindication 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 thepropagators of these errors, about their followers, and about theirwritings. Pope John’s second letter is a further specificationof his first: he now indicates the culprits, namely “somescholars of arts and in the faculty of theology at Paris”(nonnulli tam in artibus quam in theologica facultate studentesParisius). In addition, its purpose is more focused. The popewill use the dossier that he has requested from the bishop toestablish – with the help of an advisory committee – thenature of the errors and to decide whether they will have to berecanted, or condemned and whether the University of Paris will needto be reformed.

In short, the evidence also allows another scenario, namely thatTempier did not act on the pope’s instigation, but was alreadyin the process of preparing his condemnation when he received thepapal letter of January 18, 1277. In this scenario of events, thepapal letterFlumen aquae vivae crossed the letter in whichTempier announced the condemnation.

2. The juridical context of Tempier’s condemnation

Tempier’s condemnation is only one of the approximately sixteenlists of censured theses that were issued at the University of Parisduring the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Most of these lists ofpropositions were put together into systematic collections ofprohibited articles. One of the earliest of these collections ofmedieval condemned articles originated towards the end of thethirteenth century under the name of Parisian Articles or alsoCollectio errorum in anglia et parisius condempnatorum.Initially this collection consisted of twenty-two chapters presentingthe errors condemned in 1277 by Archbishop Robert Kilwardby at Oxford,in 1241 by Bishop William of Alvernia in Paris, and in 1270 and 1277by Bishop Stephen Tempier in Paris (in this order).

During the fourteenth century, this Collection grew significantly, sothat, in fact, a second, augmented Collection came into existence. Allthe propositions that were added to the first compilation had beencondemned in the fourteenth century at the University of Paris. It canbe seen as a collection of verdicts, which at the opening of each newset of verdicts provides information about the parties involved andthe date. The verdicts are not motivated, nor does the collectionprovide an account of the events (narratio).

The collection of Parisian Articles must have had some kind ofofficial 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 Romancuria or in Paris.” Moreover, many medieval philosophical andtheological texts contain references to and quotations from the“Parisian articles,” which by no means should always beidentified with Tempier’s list of condemned articles.

If one compares Tempier’s 1277 syllabus to the other lists oferrors assembled in the compilation of Parisian Articles two featuresstand out, namely the anonymity of its targets and its promulgation bya bishop. Tempier does not specify the persons behind the false views,but merely states that the errors were disseminated by “certainscholars at the faculty of arts.” The other condemnations,however, all concern specific scholars whose names are explicitlymentioned in theCollectio errorum. In addition, it is one ofthe 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 ofan appeal.

In his introductory letter to the syllabus of errors, Tempierindicates that he responded to information received from importantpeople (magnarum et gravium personarum crebra zeloque fideiaccensa insinuavit relatio). The allegations were that“some scholars of arts at Paris” (nonnulli Parisiusstudentes in artibus) had been transgressing the limits of theirown faculty (proprie facultatis limites excedentes). In alllikelihood, this complaint stemmed from theological circles.

In his introductory letter, Tempier also reports that he sought theadvice “not only of the doctors of Sacred Scripture, but also ofother wise men” (tam doctorum sacrae Scripturae, quamaliorum prudentium virorum communicato consilio). From othercases of suspect teaching we know that the task of the theologians wasto examine certain works and draw up a list of errors. In cases wherea list of alleged errors already existed, the theologians were chargedwith assessing the degree of error of the listed propositions. Thetheologian John of Pouilly reports that sixteen masters of theologywere Tempier’s assessors for the condemnation. One of themembers of the commission was Henry of Ghent, as he himself testifiesin hisQuodlibet II. It is unknown when these masters met,but it must have been after Henry of Ghent had become a regent masterin theology, a position that he obtained in 1276. That there were sometensions between Tempier and the theologians is attested by Giles ofRome, a contemporary witness of the events of 1277: he claimed thatsome articles were condemned not on the basis of the advice of themasters, but rather due to the “obstinacy of a few.” Thisobservation has been taken to concern Tempier, but it might also haveincluded some of the “wise men” who had assisted him.

The identity of these other wise men is unknown. Since, however, theyare so clearly distinguished from the theologians, they have to besought among the prelates. Of these, only the involvement of thechancellor, John of Alleux, is directly substantiated by the textualevidence: the introductory letter to Tempier’s condemnationstipulated that offenders had to report either to the bishop himselfor to the chancellor. Other likely candidates are Simon of Brion, thepapal legate, and Ranulph of Houblonnire, Tempier’s futuresuccessor as bishop of Paris.

In addition, mention should be made of the possible role of theinquisitor of France, Simon du Val. On November 23, 1276 he hadsummoned three ex-scholars from Paris, now residing in Liège,to appear before his court “probably and gravely suspect of thecrime of heresy” (de crimine heresis probabiliter etvehementer suspectos). They were Siger of Brabant, canon at SaintPaul’s, and Goswin of Chapelle and Bernier of Nivelles, canonsat Saint Martin’s, all in Liège. 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 istempting to speculate that the inquisitor’s dossier concerningthese three arts masters was known to Bishop Tempier.

3. What was condemned?

The condemnation of 1277 not only covered the already mentionedsyllabus of 219 errors, but also the work “Deamore” by Andreas Capellanus, a treatise on geomancy withthe incipit “Estimaverunt Indi” and the explicit“Racionare ergo super eum, et invenies, etc.”– which has not yet been identified – and unnamedtreatises on necromancy, witchcraft, or fortune-telling.

Of interest to historians of philosophy is the list of censuredpropositions. It is unknown what method Tempier and his advisers usedto draw up their syllabus of 219 errors. Usually, it is claimed thatTempier’s list not very well organised and “broad in scopeto the point of confusion.” However, the lack of doctrinalcohesion is also present in other lists of theCollectioerrorum, simply because the order in which the charged errorsappeared on the roll was determined by other factors such as, forinstance, the order in which they appeared in the examined work.Shortly after 1277 the extremely long list of 219 prohibited views wasreorganized, possibly to facilitate its use in the academic community.At the beginning of this century, Pierre Mandonnet once again putTempier’s articles into a new order, numbering anddistinguishing the 179 philosophical theses from the 40 theologicalones.

A very helpful summary of the condemned propositions has been providedby John F. Wippel. The first seven of the philosophical propositionsbear on the nature and excellence of philosophy. Propositions 8through 12 (in the numbering of Mandonnet) have a bearing on theknowability and nature of God. Propositions 13–15 concern divineknowledge, 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 condemningthese articles, Tempier endorsed God’s absolute power to dowhatever he wills. Other interesting themes that are touched in thephilosophical articles are the world’s eternity (80 through 89),the unicity of the human intellect and its implications (117 through133), and human freedom and free will (151 through 166). Among thetheological 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 rewardand punishment in the life to come (213–219). It should beemphasized that Tempier’s theses express positions that cannotbe maintained in light of revealed truth; for this reason, each isfollowed by the qualification, “error”.

Recently, Sylvain Piron has argued that Tempier’s list ofcondemned articles does exhibit an encyclopedic organization, whichsuggests that Tempier had a deliberate plan. Articles 25–183 canbe divided into sub-sections which respectively touch upon the topicsof God, angels, the world, the soul, the intellect, the will,philosophy, the will again (due to the misplacement of a rubric), andethics. The same global order is also present in articles 1–24.The final articles, 184–219, seem to be a miscellaneouscollection. Possibly, Tempier’s list actually consists of threeseparate lists.

4. Who was condemned on March 7, 1277?

The question of who the targets were of Tempier’s condemnationcannot be entirely separated from the question of what views werecensured. As was mentioned above, Tempier did not identify the targetsof his condemnation, but merely indicated that it was directed againstunspecified members of the arts faculty in Paris. Even though theirnames appear nowhere in the document itself (and in the rubrics ofonly two of the many medieval manuscripts which have preservedTempier’s condemnation), Siger of Brabant and Boethius of Daciahave been singled out as the most prominent targets of the 1277censure.

Yet, their identification should be qualified, as becomes clear fromthe results, or should one say lack of results, of the ground-breakingstudy by Roland Hissette. He tried to identify the proximatebackground of the 219 condemned theses. As his point of departure,Hissette took known works by Siger and Boethius and three anonymouswritings from the arts faculty that were available in a modern editionat the time that he wrote his study. From Hissette’s own summaryof the results of his careful examination it appears that surprisinglyfew of the censured propositions could be identified with any degreeof certainty in the known works of thirteenth-centuryartistae. 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 propositionsthe attribution is uncertain, whereas 68 propositions could not beidentified at all. Moreover, many censured propositions that seem tohave been derived from the examined works that originated at the artsfaculty in the thirteenth century do not really represent theauthor’s own view, but rather appear to be quotations orparaphrases from Aristotle, from Arabic philosophers, or from“the philosophers” as Hissette himself indicates.

Hissette’s examination was based on the assumption thatTempier’s censure envisioned only teachings from the faculty ofarts. The introductory letter, however, seems to contradict thisassumption. There, Tempier draws an important distinction, which hasnot been duly recognized in the scholarly literature, betweenpropagators and views. He accuses the members of the arts faculty ofdisseminating (tractare et disputare) manifest and damnederrors (manifesti et exsecrabiles errores). The errors arespecified in the roll or leaves connected to the introductory letter(in rotulo seu cedulis, praesentibus hiis annexo seuannexis). They are the 219 censured propositions. Tempier doesnot state, however, that the members of the arts faculty are theauthors of these errors. In his introductory letter Tempierseparates the 219 censured errors from their propagators. Only thepropagators have to be sought in the arts faculty in Paris: on pain ofexcommunication, they are prohibited to dogmatize, disseminate, orsustain in any way (dogmatizare, aut defendere seu sustinerequoquo modo) the propositions collected by Tempier. The origin ofthese propositions, however, is not stated in the introductory letter.In other words, Tempier indicates that thoseartistae whowere castigated for disseminating false teachings were not necessarilydisseminating theirown views. When drawing up the syllabus,Tempier and his advisers relied on more sources, written or oral, thanthose that were used by Hissette. Possibly, Tempier’s list evenincluded earlier lists of suspect views.

The inconclusiveness of Hissette’s study strongly suggests thatresearch into the proximate background of the censured propositionshas to be broadened. The directions that such research should take areindicated, either implicitly or explicitly, by Roland Hissette, and byother scholars such as John Wippel and Calvin Normore. Today it isgenerally agreed that a considerable number of the 219 censuredpropositions have a bearing on the reintroduction of pagan philosophyinto the arts faculty, and on the ensuing crisis over the relation offaith and reason. Consequently, Greek or Arabic sources may prove tobe at the origin of a number of censured propositions, as is alsosuggested in Tempier’s preface, in which he indicated that thescholars whose errors he condemned took their inspiration from paganwritings (cum errores praedictos gentilium scripturismuniant), Other propositions may well have been derived from theteaching of theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas. In particular, JohnWippel has argued (against Roland Hissette) that Aquinas’teaching was also implied in Tempier’s condemnation and thatsome of the positions were taken from his writings. In this respect,the oft-quoted statement from Tempier’s introductory letter thatmembers of the arts faculty were transgressing the limits of their ownfaculty (propriae facultatis limites excedentes) couldacquire new meaning. Some members of the arts faculty were rebuked notonly for teaching suspect philosophical views but also for teachingsuspect theological views.

Another, complementary, line of inquiry has been suggested by MalcolmDe Mowbray. According to him, many of the theses may have originatedfrom students during disputations in the schools. Given the oralcharacter of these exercises, it is only natural that they aredifficult to trace in extant works from masters of arts. Evidence forhis interpretation has De Mowbray found in Boethius of Dacia’sDe aeternitate mundi, which, according to him, was meant tohelp students to hold a disputation. Much of De Mowbray’sinterpretation hinges on our understanding of the Preface ofTempier’s condemnation, which mentions some people at thearts-faculty (nonnulli Parisius studentes in artibus) who haddiscussed and disputed the condemned articles in the schools (inscolis tractare et disputare presumunt, ut eis nescientrespondere). His interpretation has been contested by LucaBianchi.

Recently, Anthony Minnema has pointed out that article 112 (Mandonnet63), which mentions a camel, refers to a discussion of thesoul’s power of impression in the Latin translation ofal-Ghazali’s Maqāṣidal-falāsifa.

On the basis of textual evidence provided by John of Naples, MariaEvelina Malgieri has suggested an improved text of article 156(Mandonnet 79): “Quod si caelum staret ignis non ageret instupam, quia nec Deus esset,” rather than “quia naturadeest,” which was the traditional reading. This amendation isalso supported by some manuscripts of Tempier’scondemnation.

5. The doctrinal significance of Tempier’s condemnation

Tempier’s condemnation has often been depicted as the mostdramatic and significant doctrinal censure in the history of theUniversity of Paris, and a landmark in the history of medievalphilosophy and theology. Yet, the doctrinal significance of thecondemnation has received very diverse assessments. Since theappearance of the studies by Pierre Mandonnet and Fernand vanSteenberghen, Tempier’s condemnation has come to be associatedwith the opposition between faith and reason, caused by theintroduction of newly translated philosophical sources in the LatinWest, in particular Aristotle and his commentator Averroes. Studieswhich 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 thatTempier’s action was a symptom of an already existing oppositionto rationalism, that is, against philosophical research pursuedwithout concern for Christian orthodoxy. Evidence of the presence ofrationalist tendencies at the University of Paris was found in certainarticles of Tempier’s syllabus, or in the prefatory letter inwhich Tempier expounded his notion of double truth. According toTempier, some scholars maintained that certain views were trueaccording to philosophy, but not according to Catholic faith,“as if there were two contrary truths, and as if against thetruth of Sacred Scripture, there is truth in the sayings of thecondemned pagans.”

The so-called theory of double truth has been the source of muchconfusion. Nowadays, scholars agree that there were no medievalauthors who entertained the philosophically absurd theory that twocontradictory propositions – one derived from philosophicalinvestigation, the other from Christian revelation--can both be trueat the same time. Rather, Tempier’s reproach should be taken asan attempt to ridicule the hermeneutical practice of commentators toevaluate a doctrine (for instance Aristotle’s) from aphilosophical point of view (“philosophically speaking”)and from faith. In reality, however, medieval scholars generallysupposed that in cases of conflict between reason and faith, the truthwas always on the side of the faith.

In more recent times, the idea that Tempier’s condemnation was asymptom of the existence of rationalist currents at the University ofParis, in the sense of the emergence of philosophy as an autonomousdiscipline vis-à-vis divine revelation, has been furtherdeveloped by scholars such as Alain de Libera, Kurt Flasch, and LucaBianchi. Although there are differences in detail and in emphasis,they view Tempier’s action as an attempt to curb the concept ofphilosophy as a comprehensive doctrine of natural knowledge aimed atthe attainment of happiness here in this life, rather than afterdeath. Their studies about the significance of Tempier’scondemnation also address fundamental questions about the nature ofphilosophy 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 liberatedChristian thought from the dogmatic acceptance of Aristotelianism, andin this way marked the birth of modern science. Especially articles 39and 49 played a pivotal role in his eyes. Duhem’s thesis hasopened up the historiography of medieval science as a serious academicdiscipline. Yet, at the same time, no one in the field any longerendorses his view that modern science started in 1277. Of contemporaryhistorians of science, Edward Grant probably comes closest toDuhem’s vision, though his view includes many refinements andhistorical materials that were unknown to Duhem.

In any case, it is clear that the condemnation did have an impact onscholars at the university. Peter of Auvergne, for instance, wrote twosets of questions on Aristotle’s De caelo, one of which wasposterior to Tempier’s condemnation. There, Peter of Auvergnechanged his views on such crucial issues as the world’seternity, the animation of the heavens and the existence of aninfinite multitude.

6. Tempier’s other 1277 condemnations

Although Tempier’s action of March 7, 1277 is best known in thehistoriography of philosophy, mention should also be made of twoadditional doctrinal investigations of 1277 that are attributed toBishop Tempier. The first one concerned the theologian Giles of Rome,and was concluded before March 28, 1277 with the censure of fifty-onepropositions taken from Giles’s commentary on theSentences. The second doctrinal inquiry was aimed againstThomas Aquinas. It was begun after Giles’s censure, but stillbefore March 28, 1277. According to Robert Wielockx, the inquiryagainst Thomas Aquinas was never completed. Basing his conclusions onevidence provided in a letter by John Pecham, Wielockx claimed thatduring the vacancy of the Apostolic See, sometime between May 20 andNovember 25, 1277, Tempier received orders from the curia to stop hisinvestigation.

Wielockx’s thesis of a separate process against Thomas Aquinashas been generally accepted in the scholarly literature. However,recently the historical evidence has been reexamined and hisinterpretation been questioned by John Wippel and Hans Thijssen, thelatter in the context of a substantially revised account of thejuridical procedures against Giles of Rome.

Bibliography

Editions and translations

• Anzulewicz, Henryk. “Eine weitere Überlieferung derCollectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius condemnatorum imMs.lat. fol. 456 der Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz zuBerlin,”Franziskanische Studien, 74 (1992):375–99.
• Denifle, H. and E. Châtelain (eds.),ChartulariumUniversitatis Parisiensis, vol. 1, Paris 1889,543–558.
• Flasch, Kurt.Aufklärung im Mittelalter? Die Verurteilungvon 1277, Frankfurt 1989.
• Grant, Edward,A Source Book in Medieval Science,Cambridge (MA) 1974.
• Mandonnet, P.Siger de Brabant et l’averroïsmelatin au XIIIe siècle, 2 vols., Louvain, 1908–11,especially vol. 2, 175–191.
• Piché, D. (ed.),La condemnation parisienne de 1277.Texte latin, traduction, introduction et commentaire, Paris1999.

Studies

• Aertsen, Jan A., Kent Emery, Jr. and Andreas Speer (eds.), 2001.Nach der Verurteilung von 1277. Philosophie und Theologie an derUniversität von Paris im letzen Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts.Studien und Texte, Berlin, New York. [multilingual volume with anexcellent state of the art introduction in English]
• Bianchi, Luca, 1990.Il vescovo e i filosofi: La condannaparigina del 1277 e l’evoluzione dell’aristotelismoscolastico, Bergamo.
• –––, 1998. “1277: A Turning Point inMedieval Philosophy?,” in: Jan A. Aertsen and Andreas Speer(eds.),Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter?, Berlin, NewYork, 90–110.
• –––, 2009. “Students, Masters, and‘Heterodox’ Doctrines at the Parisian Faculty of Arts inthe 1270s,”Recherches de Théologie et PhilosophieMédiévales, 76: 75–109.
• Dales, Richard C., 1984. “The Origin of the Doctrine of theDouble Truth,”Viator, 15: 169–79.
• De Libera, Alain, 1991.Penser au Moyen Âge,Paris.
• –––, 1998. “Philosophie et censure.Remarques sur la crise universitaire parisienne de1270–1277,” in: Jan A. Aertsen and Andreas Speer(eds.),Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter? Berlin, New York,71–89.
• De Mowbray, Malcolm, 2002. “1277 and All That—Studentsand Disputations,”Traditio, 57: 217–238.
• –––, 2006. “The De Aeternitate Mundi ofBoethius of Dacia and the Paris Condemnation of 1277,”Recherches de Théologie et PhilosophieMédiévales, 73: 201–253.
• Duhem, P. 1906–1913Études sur Leonard deVinci, 3 vols., Paris.
• Galle, Griet, 2015. “The Relation between the Condemnationsof 1277 and Peter of Auvergne’s Questions on De caelo,”Ephemerides Theological Lovanienses, 91: 223–238.
• Grant, Edward, 1979. “The Condemnation of 1277, God’sAbsolute Power, and Physical Thought in the Late Middle Ages,”Viator, 10: 211–44.
• –––, 1996.The Foundations of Modern Sciencein the Middle Ages. Their Religious, Institutional, and IntellectualContexts, Cambridge.
• Hissette, Roland, 1977.Enquête sur les 219 articlescondamnés à Paris le 7 mars 1277, Louvain.
• –––, 1982. “Albert le Grand et Thomasd’Aquin dans la censure parisienne du 7 mars 1277,” inStudien zur mittelalterlichen Geistesgeschichte und ihrenQuellen, ed. Albert Zimmermann, 229–237, Berlin.
• –––, 1990. “ Note sur lesyllabus ‘antirationaliste’ du 7 mars 1277,”Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 88: 404–16.
• –––, 1998. “Thomas d’Aquin compromisavec Gilles de Rome en mars 1277,”Revue d’HistoireEcclésiastique, 93: 5–26.
• –––, 1998. “Thomas d’Aquindirectement visé par la censure du 7 mars 1277? Réponseà John F. Wippel,” in: J. Hamesse (ed.), Roma,Magistra mundi. Itineraria culturae medievalis(Mélanges L.E. Boyle), Louvain-La-Neuve, 425–437.
• Malgieri, Maria Evelina, 2022. “La stoppa, il fuoco, ilcielo e dio. L’articulo 156 del sillabo di Tempier e Giovanni diNapoli,”Bulletin de PhilosophieMédiévale, 64: 313–341. DOI:10.1484/J.BPM.5.131554
• Mandonnet, Pierre, 1908–1911.Siger de Brabant etl’averroïsme latin au XIIIe siècle, 2 vols.,Louvain.
• Minnema, Anthony, 2017. “Ahadit condemned at Paris.Reactions to the Power of Impression in the Latin Translation ofAl-Ghazali’s Maqaṣid al-falāsifa,”Mediterranea. International journal on the transfer ofknowledge, 2: 145–162. DOI: 10.21071/mijtk.v0i2.6718.
• Murdoch, John E., 1991. “Pierre Duhem and the History ofLate Medieval Science and Philosophy in the Latin West,” inGli studi di filosofia medievale fra otto e novecento, ed.Alfonso Maier and Ruedi Imbach, Rome, 253–302.
• –––, 1998. “1277 and Late Medieval NaturalPhilosophy,” in: Jan A. Aertsen and Andreas Speer (eds.),Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter? Berlin, New York,111–121.
• Normore, Calvin G., 1995. “Who Was Condemned in 1277?”The Modern Schoolman, 72: 273–81.
• Piron, Sylvain, 2011. “Le plan del’évêque. Pour une critique interne de lacondemnation du 7 Mars 1277,”Recherches de Théologieet Philosophie médiévales, 78(2):383–415.
• Thijssen, J. M. M. H., 1998.Censure and Heresy at theUniversity of Paris, 1200–1400, Philadelphia.
• –––, 1997. “1277 Revisited: A NewInterpretation of the Doctrinal Investigations of Thomas Aquinas andGiles of Rome,”Vivarium, 34: 1–29.
• Van Steenberghen, Fernand, 1977.Maître Siger deBrabant. Louvain.
• –––, 1980.Thomas Aquinas and RadicalAristotelianism, Washington, D.C.
• Wielockx, Robert, 1985.Aegidii Romani, Apologia,Florence.
• –––, 1988. “Autour du procès deThomas d’Aquin.” InThomas von Aquin. Werk undWirkung im Licht neurerer Forschungen, ed. A. Zimmermann, Berlin,413–38.
• –––, 1999. “Procédures contre Gilesde Rome et Thomas d’Aquin. Réponse à J.M.M.H.Thijssen,”Revue des sciences philosophiques etthéologiques, 83: 293–313.
• –––, 1998. “A Separate Process againstAquinas. A Response to John F. Wippel,” in: J. Hamesse (ed.),Roma,Magistra mundi. Itineraria culturae medievalis(Mélanges L. E. Boyle), Louvain-La-Neuve, 1009–1030.
• Wippel, John F., 1977. “The Condemnations of 1270 and 1277at Paris,”The Journal of Medieval and RenaissanceStudies, 7: 169–201.
• –––, 1995.Mediaeval Reactions to theEncounter Between Faith and Reason, Milwaukee.
• –––, 1995. “Thomas Aquinas and theCondemnation of 1277,”The Modern Schoolman, 72:233–72.
• –––, 1997. “Bishop Stephen Tempier andThomas Aquinas: A Separate Process Against Aquinas?”Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie,44: 117–36.
• Zupko, J., 2004, “John Buridan and the Origins of SecularPhilosophical Culture,” inQuia inter doctores est magnadissensio. Les débats de philosophie naturelle à Parisau XIVe siècle, ed. Stefano Caroti and Jean Celeyrette,Firenze, 33–48.

Academic Tools

	How to cite this entry.
	Preview the PDF version of this entry at theFriends of the SEP Society.
	Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
	Enhanced bibliography for this entryatPhilPapers, with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Related Entries

Aquinas, Thomas |faith |Giles of Rome Siger of Brabant