-
Preface
- University of Pennsylvania Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Preface Shortly before 1206, Master Amalric of Bene was summoned to the papal court to answer allegations of disseminating false teaching. The investigation did not turn out well for Amalric. His views were condemned by Pope Innocent III and upon his return to the University of Paris he had to recant them infront ofhis fellow scholars. According to one chronicle, Amalricwas so affected by this humiliating experience that he died shortly afterward.1 Amalric's condemnation is the earliest documented case of academic censure in the history ofthe University of Paris. But it was by no means the last one. Toward the end ofthe thirteenth century various lists oftheses that were censured at the University of Paris were gathered in the Collectio errorum in anglia et parisius condempnatorum, the "Collection of errors condemned in England and Paris:' sometimes referred to as the Collection of Parisian Articles.2 The only English censure that figures in this collection is the condemnation that was pronounced on March 18, 1277, at the UniversityofOxford by Robert Kilwardby, archbishop ofCanterbury. The remaining theses of the collection represent false teaching that was disseminated and censured at the University of Paris. During the fourteenth century, this collection grew to approximately thirteen cases of censured teaching, depending on which ofthe many copies ofthe Collectio one consults. Four of these censures have appeared prominently in the historiography of medieval philosophy: the condemnation issued by Bishop Stephen Tempier on March 7, 1277, the prohibition of the Ockhamist errors of 1340, the censure of Nicholas of Autrecourt in 1346, and the censure of John of Mirecourt in 1347. In textbooks of medieval philosophy, these condemnations have traditionally been presented as turning points in medieval thought.3 Butwere they really such unique and important events in the intellectual life of the University of Paris? Historians of medieval thought have been so fascinated by the doctrinal meaning and impact of these academic condemnations that their larger historical and institutional framework has become obscured. My major intent in this book is to examine these four causes celebres in the historiography ofmedieval philosophyfrom a different angle, namely as x Preface manifestations of academic censure at the University ofParis. By academic censure I mean the prohibition or condemnation ofteaching disseminated by a university-trained scholar concerning fine points ofscholastic theology and philosophy. The terms used in the medieval sources for what I have designated as censures are prohibitio, reprobatio, or condemnatio. Strictly speaking there is a distinction between a prohibitio and a condemnatio or reprobatio. Aprohibitio is a prohibition to disseminate certain views. It does not make any claims as to the truth orfalsity ofthose views, so that in theory even Catholic views can be prohibited, if, for instance, they might cause public outcry (scandalum) or endanger believers. The geographical and temporal scope of a prohibition is limited. A condemnatio, on the other hand, is valid for every Christian at all times (omnibus pro omni tempore) . A condemnation implies an adverse judgmenton the views that are forbidden to be disseminated. In practice, however, the boundary line between these terms cannot be easily drawn. As will become clear in this study, prohibitions also appear to imply reproval ofthe forbidden views. Moreover, transgressions ofprohibitions to disseminate certain teaching are also threatened with judicial sanctions, such as suspension of all scholarly activities, or excommunication. The medieval term censura (ecclesiastica), which also sometimes appears in university-related documents, has no bearing on academic censures. It was reserved for a spiritual punishment inflicted by an ecclesiastical judge, in particular for any ofthe three so-called ecclesiastical censures, that is, excommunication, interdict, or suspension.4 In this study I have made central what in the historiography ofmedieval philosophy has been regarded as of secondary importance, namely, questions that the academic censures raise concerning the judicial procedures , the agent of authority in monitoring false teaching at a university, and the effects that the condemnations had on the careers ofthe accused. In this respect, the present study joins a shift in attention from issues surrounding doctrines to issues of authority and freedom ofthought that has begun with Josef Koch, and has been continued in more recent times by Jiirgen Miethke, William Courtenay, and others.5 The four case studies are preceded by a chapter in which I will try to create a general perspective on the phenomenon ofacademic censure at the University of Paris. This survey covers the period between 1200 and I400. The first date marks the beginning ofthe University ofParis, and hence the...