CHAPTER TWO

THE CONDEMNATION OF 1277

Th e fi rst known case of academic condemnation at Oxford occurred in 1277. On March 18th of that year Robert Kilwardby, , condemned as erroneous a series of propositions that were being upheld in the arts faculty involving grammar, , and natural philosophy.1 Th is event and its sequels, the Condemnation of 1284 and the Condemnation of Richard Knapwell, form the most examined ele- ment in the history of academic condemnation at Oxford, with the possible exception of the events around the condemnation of John Wyclif and the Oxford Lollards in 1381–82. Th ere is a large body of literature on this topic, and various aspects of it have been hotly debated over the past century.2

1 Th e condemnation, including the propositions, can be found in Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. H. Denifl e and E. Chatelain, (Paris, 1889–97), 1:558–60. It also exists (with minor variations in the wording of the propositions) in the Collectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius condemnatorum; see Henryk Anzulewicz, “Eine weitere Überlieferung der Collectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius condemnatorum im Ms. Lat. Fol. 456 der Staatsbibliothek Preussicher Kulturbesitz zu Berlin,” in Franziskanische Studien 74 (1992), pp. 375–99, at pp. 380–81. Th ere also exists a letter from Kilwardby to Peter of Confl ans in which he defends his action; Franz Ehrle, “Ein Schreiben des Erzbishofs von Canterbury Robert Kilwardby zur Rechtfertigung seiner Lehrverurtheilung vom 18. Marz 1277,” in Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, ed. H. Denifl e and F. Ehrle, Band 5 (1889), pp. 607–635. C.H. Lawrence cites a third reference to this event in the Annals of Oseney, but his citation appears to be incorrect and I have been unable to fi nd this entry or any other reference to it in other scholarship; “Th e University in State and Church”, p. 116, n.3, in HUO, ed. J.I. Catto, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), 1:97–150. 2 To cite all the secondary literature on these events would be prohibitively long, but among the more important works are Ehrle, “Schreiben”; Th eodore Crowley, “, O.F.M., Archbishop of Canterbury, versus the New Aristotelianism,” in the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Manchester, v. 33, #2, (March 1951), pp. 242–55; Daniel A. Callus, Th e Condemnation of St Th omas at Oxford, (London, 1955); Frederick J. Roensch, Early Th omistic School, (Dubuque, 1964); Leland Wilshire, “Were the Oxford Condemnations of 1277 Directed Against Aquinas?” in New Scholasticism, v. 48 (1974), p. 125–32, and “Th e Oxford Condemnations of 1277 and the Intellectual Life of the Th irteenth-Century Universities,” in Apectus et Aff ectus: Essays and Editions in Grosseteste and Medieval Intellectual Life in Honor of Richard C. Dales, ed. Gunar Freibergs, (New York, 1993), p. 113–24. See also Lawrence, “University,” p. 116–7, P. Osmund Lewry, “Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric 1220–1320,” pp. 419–26, and J.I. Catto, “Th eology and Th eologians 1220–1320,” pp. 498–9, all in HUO, v.1 Th e Early 26 chapter two

Robert Kilwardby and the Background to the Condemnation of 1277

Robert Kilwardby, the only specifi c person known to have been involved in this incident, was one of the leading English scholars in the mid-thirteenth century.3 He began his university career at Paris in 1231, graduated with a masters of arts c.1237, and taught in the arts faculty for close to a decade, earning a reputation as a grammarian and logician. Around 1245, he entered the , probably in England, and then studied at Oxford, becoming a doctor of theology around 1256.4 In 1261 he was elected Provincial of his order. He was re-elected in 1272, but the same year he was appointed to the archbishopric of Canterbury by papal provision. As a scholar, his works on logic and philosophical grammar had considerable infl u- ence, reaching down into the sixteenth century, but his compiled indi- ces of various works of Augustine, Anselm, and the Sentences were also important. He was also interested in reconciling Augustinian the- ology and Aristotelian philosophy, one of the most important intellec- tual concerns of the 1260s and 70s.5 However, his commitment to Augustinian thought led him to reject major elements of Aristotelian thought as simply untrue. His position on this issue was to be at the heart of his condemnation. Th e Condemnation of 1277 at Oxford was part of one of the most important events of in the history of medieval philosophy and since these events are relevant to both this chapter and the next, some back- ground is necessary. Th e thirteenth century saw the growing infl uence of Aristotelian thought at the Universities of Paris and Oxford, thanks to the rediscovery of ’s philosophical works.6 Starting in 1210, there were a series of prohibitions at the on the read- ing of various Aristotelian works, but by 1234, the entire Aristo telian

Oxford Schools, ed. J.I. Catto, (Oxford, 1984); Gordon Leff , Paris and Oxford Universities in the Th irteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, (New York, 1968) pp. 290–4; Nach der Verurteilung von 1277: Philosophie und Th eologie an der Universität von Paris im letzeten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts. Studien und Texte, ed. Jan A. Aertsen, Kent Emery, Jr., and Andreas Speer, (Berlin, 2001). 3 For Kilwardby, see M.D. Chenu, “Kilwardby, Robert,” in Dictionnaire de Th éologie Catholique, (Paris, 1923–50), v. 8, pt. 2, col.2354–5; Ellen M.F. Sommer-Seckendorff , Studies in the Life of Robert Kilwardby, O.P., (Rome, 1937); Emden, BRUO, 2:1051–2; Simon Tugwell, “Kilwardby, Robert (c.1215–1279)” in ODNB, 31:580–83. 4 Catto, “Th eology,” p. 490, dates his entry into the order as late as 1249 or aft er. 5 Roensch, Early Th omistic School, p. 191, n.17; Tugwell, “Kilwardby,” p. 580. 6 For a detailed exploration of these developments, see Roensch, Early Th omistic School, pp. 1–19.