Censure and Heresy at the University of Paris, 1200–1400 (review)

Censure and Heresy at the University of Paris, 1200-1400. By J. M. M. H. Thijssen. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1998. Pp. xiii, 187. $35.00.)

In the preface to this work Thijssen mentions the early thirteenth-century case of Amalric of Bène as the first documented instance of academic censure in the history of the newly founded University of Paris. But it was by no means the last. By the end of the thirteenth century various lists of censured propositions had been assembled in a work known as the Collectio errorum in anglia et parisius condempnatorum, and during the fourteenth century this collection would increase so as to include some thirteen cases of censured teaching. Four of these have received considerable attention from historians of medieval philosophy, i.e., the condemnation of 219 propositions by Bishop Stephen Tempier of March 7, 1277; the prohibition of Ockhamist errors of 1340; the censure of Nicholas of Autrecourt's opinions of 1346; and the censure of John of Mirecourt's views in 1347. Accordingly, Thijssen devotes chapters 2, 3, and 4 of this very interesting book to these. But first he suggests that historians of medieval philosophy have so heavily concentrated on the doctrinal content and impact of these censures that they have permitted their "larger historical and institutional framework" to become obscured. He proposes therefore to concentrate on the judicial procedures involved, together with the authority that monitored teaching at the University, and the effects the condemnations had on those accused.

In chapter 1 he discusses certain more general aspects of academic censures that were initiated within the University itself. Because the procedural sources for these are extremely limited, he also turns for additional evidence to censures involving university-trained scholars which were initiated outside the University. His assumption is that the way of proceeding against academics charged with disseminating false teachings was basically the same in all cases.

In seeking to determine who possessed the necessary authority and knowledge to levy academic censures, Thijssen finds that proceedings against medieval academics could involve four possible tribunals: (1) a consistory or commission of the chancellor and masters of theology at the University; (2) the local episcopal court; (3) the papal court; (4) the forum of the minister general of a religious order and his advisers. He also concludes that such cases might include the following stages: (1) initiation or commencement of the action; (2) preliminary inquiry; (3) citation and defense offered by the accused; (4) a decision or sentence; and (5) a possible appeal to a higher tribunal. Especially interesting is his discussion of the different strategies employed by accused academics in their own defense.

Thijssen devotes the whole of chapter 2 to the massive condemnation of March 7, 1277. He recognizes that the doctrinal significance of this event has been evaluated quite differently by various twentieth-century scholars. From the procedural standpoint, it stands out because it was pronounced not by a panel of the chancellor and his theologians, but by the bishop, and because it leaves its targets unnamed. Thijssen revises some generally accepted views concerning this condemnation. Rather than conclude that Tempier was moved to act by the letter written to him by Pope John XXI on January 18, 1277, he suggests that the bishop was already acting independently before he received this letter. He thinks that Tempier's action should rather be connected with a citation issued on November 23, 1276, by Simon du Val, Inquisitor of France, commanding Siger of Brabant and two of his colleagues from the Faculty of Arts to appear before his court. Unfortunately, Thijssen can offer no decisive documentary evidence to support this new interpretation or, for that matter, to support the revisionist account he also proposes for Siger's final years.

In addressing the still contested issue concerning who was targeted by this condemnation, Thijssen makes an interesting suggestion. Against R. Hissette...