Maelgwn Gwynedd Gildas What was Gildas? Gildas makes an allegorical condemnation of 5 British kings Why did he condemn them? likening them to the beasts of the Book of Revelation, What did he say about Gwynedd? describing Maelgwn as the "dragon of the island" is appropriate. Why was that an appropriate description? The Isle of Anglesey was the base of power of the kings of Gwynedd,
Why did he make these condemnations?
Why did Gildas condemn?
In his work On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain written c. 540, Gildas makes an allegorical condemnation of 5 British kings by likening them to the beasts of the Book of Revelation, 13-2: the lion, leopard, bear, and dragon, with the dragon supreme among them. He says that Maelgwn is the "dragon of the island", and goes on with a litany of moral accusations, in the process describing him almost as a regional high king over the other kings (the power-giving dragon of the Apocalypse). The Isle of Anglesey was the base of power of the kings of Gwynedd, so describing Maelgwn as the "dragon of the island" is appropriate.  Gildas restricts his attention to the kings of Gwynedd (Maelgwn), Dyfed (Vortiporius), Penllyn (probable, as its king Cuneglasus/Cynlas appears in royal genealogies associated with the region), Damnonia/Alt Clud (Constantine), and the unknown region associated with Caninus. The Welsh kingdoms are all associated with the conquest of the Gaels by Cunedda, while Alt Clud had a long and ongoing relationship with Gwynedd and its kings.  In the course of his condemnations, Gildas makes passing reference to the other beasts mentioned in the Apocalypse, such as the eagle, serpent, calf, and wolf. The reason for Gildas' disaffection for these individuals is unknown. He was selective in his choice of kings, as he had no comments concerning the kings of the other British kingdoms that were thriving at the time, such as Rheged, Gododdin, Elmet, Pengwern/Powys, or the kingdoms of modern-day southern England. That he chose only the kings associated with one king's pre-eminence (Maelgwn, the "dragon") suggests a reason other than his claim of moral outrage over personal depravity. Neither outrage nor a doctrinal dispute would seem to justify beginning the condemnation of the five kings with a personal attack against the mother of one of the kings, calling her an "unclean lioness". CANNOTANSWER
The reason for Gildas' disaffection for these individuals is unknown.
Maelgwn Gwynedd (; died c. 547) was king of Gwynedd during the early 6th century. Surviving records suggest he held a pre-eminent position among the Brythonic kings in Wales and their allies in the "Old North" along the Scottish coast. Maelgwn was a generous supporter of Christianity, funding the foundation of churches throughout Wales and even far beyond the bounds of his own kingdom. Nonetheless, his principal legacy today is the scathing account of his behavior recorded in De excidio et conquestu Britanniae by Gildas, who considered Maelgwn a usurper and reprobate. The son of Cadwallon Lawhir and great grandson of Cunedda, Maelgwn was buried on Ynys Seiriol (now known as Puffin Island in English), off the eastern tip of Anglesey, having died of the "yellow plague"; quite probably the arrival of Justinian's Plague in Britain.

Name
Maelgwn (IPA: /mɑːɨlgʊn/) in a Middle Welsh name meaning 'Princely Hound'. Attested in Latin as Maglocunus in the Annales Cambriae, it derives from a Common Brittonic form reconstructed as *Maglo-kunos, a compound composed of the root *maglo- (MW. mael), meaning 'prince', attached to *cun- (cwn), an old oblique case root of *cū (ci), meaning 'hound, dog'. As the word for 'hound' was sometimes used as a kenning for warriors in early Welsh poetry, the name may also be translated as 'Princely Warrior'.

Reign
After the collapse of Roman authority in Britain, north Wales was invaded and colonized by Gaelic tribes from Ireland. The kingdom of Gwynedd began with the reconquest of the coast by northern Britons under the command of Maelgwn's great-grandfather Cunedda Wledig. Generations later, Maelgwn's father Cadwallon Long-Hand completed the process by destroying the last Irish settlements on Anglesey. Maelgwn was the first king to enjoy the fruits of his family's conquest and he is considered the founder of the medieval kingdom's royal family. He is thus most commonly referenced by appending the name of the kingdom to his own: Maelgwn Gwynedd.

By tradition, his llys (, literally hall) was located at Deganwy, in the Creuddyn peninsula of Rhos. Tradition also holds that he died at nearby Llanrhos, and was buried there. Other traditions say that he was buried at Ynys Seiriol (), off easternmost Anglesey. There are no historical records to confirm or deny these traditions.

Historical records of this early era are scant. Maelgwn appears in the royal genealogies of the Harleian genealogies, Jesus College MS. 20, and Hengwrt MS. 202. His death in a "great mortality" of 547 is noted in the Annales Cambriae. Tradition holds that he died of the 'Yellow Plague' of Rhos, but this is based on one of the Triads that was written much later. The record says only that it was a "great mortality", which followed the outbreak of the great Plague of Justinian in Constantinople by a few years.

Maelgwn was a generous contributor to the cause of Christianity throughout Wales. He made donations to support Saint Brynach in Dyfed, Saint Cadoc in Gwynllwg, Saint Cybi in Anglesey, Saint Padarn in Ceredigion, and Saint Tydecho in Powys. He is also associated with the foundation of Bangor, but hard evidence of this is lacking. In his 1723 Mona Antiqua Restaurata, Henry Rowlands asserts that Bangor was raised to an episcopal see by Maelgwn in 550, but he provides no source for the assertion.

The only contemporary information about the person is provided by Gildas, who includes Maelgwn among the five British kings whom he condemns in allegorical terms in his De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae. He says Maelgwn held a regional pre-eminence among the other four kings, going on to say that he overthrew his paternal uncle () to gain the throne; that he had taken up life as a monk but then returned to the secular world; that he had been married and divorced, then remarried to the widow of his nephew after being responsible for his nephew's death; and that he was tall.

"High king"

The evidence suggests that Maelgwn held a pre-eminent position over the regions ruled by the descendants of Cunedda, perhaps in the sense of a regional high king. There is nothing to suggest that Maelgwn held sway over any larger area. Gildas says as much in his condemnation, saying he held a pre-eminence over the other four kings similarly condemned, and also describing him as the "dragon of the island", where the Isle of Anglesey is the ancient stronghold of the kings of Gwynedd.

The fact that Maelgwn's donations to religious foundations are not restricted to the Kingdom of Gwynedd but are spread throughout northern and southern Wales in the regions where the descendants of Cunedda held sway implies that Maelgwn had a responsibility to those regions beyond the responsibilities of a king to his own kingdom.

While the context is not definitive, Taliesin also implies it, in his Marwnad Rhun () that laments the death of Maelgwn's son Rhun, where he says that Rhun's death is "the fall of the court and girdle of Cunedda".

Gildas 

In his work On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain written , Gildas makes an allegorical condemnation of five British kings by likening them to the beasts of the Book of Revelation 13:2--the lion, leopard, bear, and dragon, with the dragon supreme among them. He says that Maelgwn is the "dragon of the island", and goes on with a litany of moral accusations, in the process describing him almost as a regional high king over the other kings (the power-giving dragon of the Apocalypse). The Isle of Anglesey was the base of power of the kings of Gwynedd, so describing Maelgwn as the "dragon of the island" is appropriate.

Gildas restricts his attention to the kings of Gwynedd (Maelgwn), Dyfed (Vortiporius), Penllyn (probable, as its king Cuneglasus/ Cynlas appears in royal genealogies associated with the region), Damnonia/Alt Clud (Constantine), and the unknown region associated with Caninus. The Welsh kingdoms are all associated with the conquest of the Gaels by Cunedda, while Alt Clud had a long and ongoing relationship with Gwynedd and its kings.

In the course of his condemnations, Gildas makes passing reference to the other beasts mentioned in the Apocalypse, such as the eagle, serpent, calf, and wolf. The reason for Gildas' disaffection for these individuals is unknown. He was selective in his choice of kings, as he had no comments concerning the kings of the other British kingdoms that were thriving at the time, such as Rheged, Gododdin, Elmet, Pengwern/Powys, or the kingdoms of modern-day southern England. That he chose only the kings associated with one king's pre-eminence (Maelgwn, the "dragon") suggests a reason other than his claim of moral outrage over personal depravity. Neither outrage nor a doctrinal dispute would seem to justify beginning the condemnation of the five kings with a personal attack against the mother of one of the kings, calling her an "unclean lioness".

Literary record 
In the Historia Brittonum, Nennius says that "the great king Mailcun reigned among the Britons, i.e., in Gwynedd". He adds that Maelgwn's ancestor Cunedda arrived in Gwynedd 146 years before Maelgwn's reign, coming from Manaw Gododdin, and expelled the Scots [i.e., the Gaels] with great slaughter.

Maelgwn appears once in the Welsh Triads: In the 'Three Tribal Thrones of the Island of Britain', which describes three seats of power, each ruled by Arthur, Maelgwn is Arthur's Chief of Elders in Mynyw (St David's). The pestilence that killed him also appears as one of the 'Three Dreadful Pestilences of the Isle of Britain'. It is described as the Yellow Plague of Rhos, originating from the carcasses of the dead.

There is an incidental mention of Maelgwn in the song To Maenwyn found in the Red Book of Hergest and attributed to Llywarch Hen. The steward () Maenwyn is encouraged to resist a command to surrender his post and show his fidelity to Maelgwn.

In the Book of Llandaff, compiled c. 1125, Maelgwn Gwynedd is claimed to be one of the benefactors of the Diocese of Llandaff in its early years. One of the specific places mentioned is at Louhai (Tintern parva, some 6 miles north of Chepstow), where Maelgwn is claimed as a secular witness to its donation.

In the Black Book of Carmarthen, Dormarch, Gwyn ap Nudd's favourite hound, is recorded as previously belonging to Maelgwn Gwynedd. This is significant in relation to the mythological role of his new master in the Wild Hunt.

Fictional tradition
As a famous king of the past, Maelgwn's name figures strongly in Welsh legend. It is used more often than most in questionable accounts of history and in genuine efforts at history that either invent fictions of their own, or repeat the fictions of others as though they were true. Some of the most significant sources of misinformation about Maelgwn are:

The History of the Kings of Britain

Geoffrey of Monmouth's 12th-century pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae includes Maelgwn (Malgo) as a character in its account of British history. It says that Saint David was buried at St David's on the command of "Malgo, king of the Venedotians", that Malgo addicted himself to sodomy, and that he was succeeded by a certain Careticus. It adds that Britain had groaned under the barbarians since the time of Malgo, that Malgo was the fourth king of Britain after Arthur, and that Malgo had two sons, Ennianus and Runo.

Scholars contend that there is no authority for any of this except Geoffrey's fertile imagination. Historically, Rhun ap Maelgwn was Maelgwn's son and successor (though this may be the 'Runo' Geoffrey refers to). Geoffrey appears to twist Gildas' words to obtain his reference to sodomy. In his condemnation of 5 British kings in the De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, Gildas refers to wine as "sodomitical" but never applies that word to any person.

The Brut Tysilio

Once attributed to Saint Tysilio (died 640), the Chronicle of the Kings of Britain was written c. 1500 as an amalgam of earlier versions of the Brut y Brenhinedd, a derivative of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae. Among its spurious claims is that Maelgwn Gwynedd came to the crown following Vortiper, that he was succeeded by a certain Caretig, that he was the fourth king of all Britain after Arthur, and that he had two sons, Einion and Rhun.

The Iolo Manuscripts

Maelgwn Gwynedd is mentioned repeatedly in the spurious 18th century Iolo Manuscripts of Iolo Morganwg. His three Chief Bards are named, and he is proclaimed King Paramount over the other kings. A Maelgwn Hir of Llandaff is described, and said to be commonly mistaken for Maelgwn Gwynedd. Taliesin is said to have been dispossessed of his property by Maelgwn, and so cursed him. Saint Eurgain is said to be Maelgwn's daughter. Saint Cwyllog, daughter of Caw Cawlwyd of Twr Celyn, had been given lands by Maelgwn Gwynedd. In 'The Three Holy Families of the Isle of Britain', there is a story of Caw and his children who had been driven from their lands by the Gwyddelian Picts, and who then came to Wales and were given land in Anglesey by Maelgwn. Without independent and reputable verification, the material found in the Iolo Manuscripts is considered to be the product of Iolo's fertile imagination.

The Tale of Taliesin

The Tale of Taliesin (Hanes Taliesin or Ystoria Taliesin) is a genuine legendary story about Taliesin which is preserved in two principal redactions dating from the mid-16th century and the early 17th century but which probably derives from older sources. It was first printed in Lady Charlotte Guest's translation of the Mabinogion: the notes to that edition are the work of Iolo Morganwg and contain inaccuracies and some of his inventions. The story itself tells of events where the Taliesin of legend is placed in difficult or impossible situations but invariably overcomes all obstacles, usually through feats of magic. Maelgwn Gwynedd is conspicuously depicted in a negative light, being foiled in unscrupulous actions of deceit and being outwitted.

The historical Taliesin was actually a contemporary of Maelgwn Gwynedd's son and successor Rhun. An elegy for Rhun, the Marwnad Rhun () was once attributed to Taliesin by some scholars.  but is now considered to be of later provenance and is no longer accepted as his work. There is nothing to connect the historical Taliesin with Maelgwn Gwynedd, although references to the legend are found in medieval Welsh poems.

The Chronicle of the Scottish Nation

According to the account of John of Fordun's Chronicle of the Scottish Nation, written c. 1360, a certain "Maglo, King of the Britons" asks for aid from King Aydanus. There is nothing to link Maelgwn Gwynedd to the Pictish king, Fordun's claim notwithstanding. In the next section, Fordun says that later on it is "Cadwallo, King of the Britons" who is receiving aid from King Aydanus.

This story is repeated uncritically in some later histories, and subsequently "Malgo the Briton" is mentioned in Thomas Stephens' notes on an 1888 publication of Y Gododdin, with the stated suggestion that Maelgwn was an ally of "Aeddan" against the Pictish king Bridei. Fordun's Chronicle is given as one of Stephens' references.

The Pictish king Bridei

Bridei (died c. 584) was the son of a certain Maelchon (or Melcho, or Maelchú in Irish records). Aside from having a similar name, there is nothing that connects the father of Bridei to Maelgwn Gwynedd.

Of those who have promoted a connection, perhaps the most notable person of late is John Morris in his Age of Arthur, where he refers in passing and without authority, to "... Bridei, son of Maelgwn, the mighty king of north Wales, ...". Though the book has been a commercial success, it is disparaged by historians as an unreliable source of "misleading and misguided" information.

Later fiction
As a famous king of the past, Maelgwn has been associated with unsubstantiated but popular legends and stories throughout history. Modern authors have occasionally used his name as a character in fictional stories. These include the trilogies of Traci Harding, Mary Gilgannon's historical novels, and a fantasy novel by Nikolai Tolstoy.

Family and children
His father was Cadwallon Lawhir and his mother Meddyf, a daughter of Maeldaf. He had a brother and nephew, mentioned in Gildas' De Excidio, but they are unnamed. He is given various wives, including Nesta, Sanan (his nephew's wife) and Gwallwyn (possibly his cousin). It is also possible that he impregnated the Pictish princess Waelgush.

His children are variously given as:

 Alser
 Doeg
 Einion
 Eurgain (daughter)
 Rhun Hir

It is possible but highly debated whether Bridei I and his sister Domelch were children of Maelgwn. Their father is given as Máelchú, which is the Irish form of Maelgwn.

See also
Kings of Wales family trees

Citations

References 

 — English translation
 — in Latin

 — from MSS. in the Libraries of Hengwrt, and of Jesus College (English translation)

External links 
Maelgwn Gwynedd on National Library of Wales Dictionary of Welsh Biography

Characters in works by Geoffrey of Monmouth
Monarchs of Gwynedd
540s deaths
Year of death uncertain
Year of birth unknown
6th-century Welsh monarchs
6th-century deaths from plague (disease)
Condemnation may refer to:

 Damnation, the antithesis of salvation
 The act of eminent domain which refers to the power of a government to take private property for public use
 "Condemnation" (song), a 1993 song by Depeche Mode
 Condemnation (novel), a 2003 fantasy novel by Richard Baker

See also
 The Condemnations of 1210–1277, a series of condemnations or restrictions on certain medieval teachings at the University of Paris
 Condemned (disambiguation) The Condemnations at the medieval University of Paris were enacted to restrict certain teachings as being heretical. These included a number of medieval theological teachings, but most importantly the physical treatises of Aristotle. The investigations of these teachings were conducted by the Bishops of Paris. The Condemnations of 1277 are traditionally linked to an investigation requested by Pope John XXI, although whether he actually supported drawing up a list of condemnations is unclear.

Approximately sixteen lists of censured theses were issued by the University of Paris during the 13th and 14th centuries. Most of these lists of propositions were put together into systematic collections of prohibited articles. Of these, the Condemnations of 1277 are considered particularly important by those historians who consider that they encouraged scholars to question the tenets of Aristotelian science. From this perspective, some historians maintain that the condemnations had positive effects on the development of science, perhaps even representing the beginnings of modern science.

Condemnation of 1210
The Condemnation of 1210 was issued by the provincial synod of Sens, which included the Bishop of Paris as a member (at the time Pierre II de la Chapelle). The writings of a number of medieval scholars were condemned, apparently for pantheism, and it was further stated that: "Neither the books of Aristotle on natural philosophy or their commentaries are to be read at Paris in public or secret, and this we forbid under penalty of excommunication." However, this had only local force, and its application was further restricted to the Arts faculty at the University of Paris. Theologians were therefore left free to read the prohibited works, the titles of which were not even specified.   Alexander of Aphrodisias was probably among the Aristotelian commentators whose influence was targeted.

The University of Toulouse (founded in 1229) tried to capitalise on the situation by advertising itself to students: "Those who wish to scrutinize the bosom of nature to the inmost can hear the books of Aristotle which were forbidden at Paris." However, whether the prohibition had actually had an effect on the study of the physical texts in Paris is unclear. English scholars, including Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon, studied at Paris, when they could have chosen to study at the University of Oxford, where the works could still be discussed in public. It is assumed that at the least they continued to be read in Paris in private, and there are also signs that their discussion had become public by 1240.

Condemnation of 1270
By 1270, the ban on Aristotle's natural philosophy was a dead letter.  Nevertheless, the Bishop of Paris, Étienne Tempier, convened a meeting of conservative theologians and in December 1270 banned the teaching of certain Aristotelian and Averroist doctrines at Paris.  Thirteen propositions were listed as false and heretical, some relating to Averroes' doctrine of the soul and the doctrine of monopsychism, and others directed against Aristotle's theory of God as a passive unmoved mover.  The banned propositions included:

"That there is numerically one and the same intellect for all humans".
"That the soul separated [from the body] by death cannot suffer from bodily fire".
"That God cannot grant immortality and incorruption to a mortal and corruptible thing".
"That God does not know singulars" (i.e., individual objects or creatures).
"That God does not know things other than Himself".
"That human acts are not ruled by the providence of God".
"That the world is eternal".
"That there was never a first human".

Those who "knowingly" taught or asserted them as true would suffer automatic excommunication, with the implied threat of the medieval Inquisition if they persisted.  It is not known which of these statements were "taught knowingly" or "asserted" by teachers at Paris, although Siger of Brabant and his radical Averroist colleagues at the Faculty of Arts were targets.  Evidently, the radical masters had taught that Aristotle put forward controversial propositions—which according to the Averroists would have been true at least in philosophy, even if rejected in theology—the doctrine of two truths—and questions such as free will and the immortality of the soul were doubtless subject to scholarly debate between masters and students.  However, it seems "inconceivable" that any teacher would deny God's Providence.

Condemnation of 1277

The chain of events leading up to Bishop Tempier's condemnation of 1277 is still not entirely clear. The Catholic Encyclopedia records that the theologians of the University of Paris had been very uneasy due to the antagonism that existed between Christian dogmas and certain Peripatetic doctrines. According to the historian Edward Grant, the theologians desired to condemn Aristotle's teachings on the eternity of the world and the unicity of the intellect.

On 18 January 1277, Pope John XXI instructed Bishop Tempier to investigate the complaints of the theologians. "Not only did Tempier investigate but in only three weeks, on his own authority, he issued a condemnation of 219 propositions drawn from many sources, including, apparently, the works of Thomas Aquinas, some of whose ideas found their way onto the list." The list published on 7 March condemned a great number of "errors", some of which emanated from the astrology, and others from the philosophy of the Peripatetics. These included:

9. "That there was no first man, nor will there be a last; on the contrary, there always was and always will be generation of man from man."
49. "That God could not move the heavens with rectilinear motion; and the reason is that a vacuum would remain."
87. "That the world is eternal as to all the species contained in it; and that time is eternal, as are motion, matter, agent, and recipient; and because the world is from the infinite power of God, it is impossible that there be novelty in an effect without novelty in the cause."

The penalty for anyone teaching or listening to the listed errors was excommunication, "unless they turned themselves in to the bishop or the chancellor within seven days, in which case the bishop would inflict proportionate penalties." The condemnation sought to stop the Master of Arts teachers from interpreting the works of Aristotle in ways that were contrary to the beliefs of the Church. In addition to the 219 errors, the condemnation also covered Andreas Capellanus's De amore, and unnamed or unidentified treatises on geomancy, necromancy, witchcraft, or fortunetelling.

The condemnation of 1277 was later partially annulled "insofar as the teachings of Thomas Aquinas would seem to be implied."

Assessment

The long list has often been labelled as not being particularly organised, and that it is "broad in scope to the point of confusion." However, the order on the roll has been attributed to factors such as the order in which the errors appeared in the examined works. The list was reorganised shortly after 1277, possibly to facilitate its use in the academic community. In the 20th century, the articles were once again reorganised by Dominican Pierre Mandonnet, numbering and distinguishing the 179 philosophical theses from the 40 theological ones. The list was summarised into groupings and further explained by John F. Wippel. It has also been emphasised by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that "Tempier's theses express positions that cannot be maintained in light of revealed truth, and for this reason are each followed by the qualification 'error'."

Another problem was that Tempier did not identify the targets of his condemnation, merely indicating that it was directed against unspecified members of the Arts Faculty in Paris. Siger of Brabant and Boethius of Dacia have been singled out as the most prominent targets of the 1277 censure, even though their names are not found in the document itself, appearing instead in the rubrics of only two of the many manuscripts that preserve the condemnation. These two scholars were important proponents of the Averroist movement. The ground-breaking study by the historian Roland Hissette has shown that many of the censured propositions appear to have come from Aristotle, from Arab philosophers, or from "the philosophers" (i.e. other Greek philosophers).

The role that Pope John XXI played in the lead up to the condemnations is a more recent point of discussion. Because the papal letter preceded Tempier's condemnation by only about six weeks, the traditional assumption was that Tempier had acted on papal initiative, and in an overzealous and hasty way. However, more than forty days after Tempier produced his list, another papal letter gives no indication that the Pope was as yet aware of Tempier's action, and seems to suggest otherwise. It is therefore possible that Tempier had already been preparing his condemnations prior to receiving the Pope's first letter. The Pope himself had not played any direct role in the condemnations, having merely requested an investigation, and one scholar has argued that there was "less than enthusiastic papal approval of the bishop of Paris' actions."

Effects

Pierre Duhem considered that these condemnations "destroyed certain essential foundations of Peripatetic physics". Although the Aristotelian system viewed propositions such as the existence of a vacuum to be ridiculously untenable, belief in Divine Omnipotence sanctioned them as possible, whilst waiting for science to confirm them as true. From at least 1280 onward, many masters at Paris and Oxford admitted that the laws of nature are certainly opposed to the production of empty space, but that the realisation of such a space is not, in itself, contrary to reason. These arguments gave rise to the branch of mechanical science known as dynamics.

Pierre Duhem and Edward Grant state this caused a break from Aristotle's work and forced the teachers of the time to believe Aristotle's work imperfect. According to Duhem, "if we must assign a date for the birth of modern science, we would, without doubt, choose the year 1277 when the bishop of Paris solemnly proclaimed that several worlds could exist, and that the whole of heavens could, without contradiction, be moved with a rectilinear motion."

Duhem's view has been extremely influential in the historiography of medieval science, and opened it up as a serious academic discipline. "Duhem believed that Tempier, with his insistence of God's absolute power, had liberated Christian thought from the dogmatic acceptance of Aristotelianism, and in this way marked the birth of modern science." The condemnations certainly had a positive effect on science, but scholars disagree over their relative influence. Historians in the field no longer fully endorse his view that modern science started in 1277. Edward Grant is probably the only contemporary historian of science who comes closest to Duhem's vision. What historians do agree upon is that the condemnations allowed science "to consider possibilities that the great philosopher never envisioned." According to the historian of science Richard Dales, they "seem definitely to have promoted a freer and more imaginative way of doing science."

Others point out that in philosophy, a critical and skeptical reaction followed on from the Condemnations 1277. Since the theologians had asserted that Aristotle had erred in theology, and pointed out the negative consequences of uncritical acceptance of his ideas, scholastic philosophers such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham (both Franciscan friars) believed he might also be mistaken in matters of philosophy. The Scotist and Ockhamist movements set Scholasticism on a different path from that of Albert the Great and Aquinas, and the theological motivation of their philosophical arguments can be traced back to 1277. They stressed the traditional Franciscan themes of Divine Omnipotence and Divine Freedom, which formed part of Ockham's first thesis.

Ockham's second thesis was the principle of parsimony: also known as Ockham's razor. This developed a new form of logic, based on an empiricist theory of knowledge. "While Scholastic in setting," as David Lindberg writes, it was "thoroughly modern in orientation. Referred to as the via moderna, in opposition to the via antiqua of the earlier scholastics, it has been seen as a forerunner of a modern age of analysis." Other, even more skeptical thinkers in the mid-14th century included John of Mirecourt and Nicholas of Autrecourt. It has been suggested that the new philosophy of nature that emerged from the rise of Skepticism following the Condemnations, contained "the seeds from which modern science could arise in the early seventeenth century."

See also
History of Science in the Middle Ages
Medieval university
Renaissance of the 12th century

Notes

References
 Dales, Richard C. (1980a) "The De- Animation of the Heavens in the Middle Ages," Journal of the History of Ideas 41 : 531–50
 Dales, Richard C. (1980b)  The Intellectual Life of Western Europe in the Middle Ages.  Washington, DC: University Press of America.
 Duhem, Pierre. (1906–1913)  Etudes sur Leonard de Vinci Paris: A. Hermann, II.
 Grant, Edward. (1962) "Late Medieval Thought, Copernicus, and the Scientific Revolution", Journal of the History of Ideas, XXIII, n. 8.
 Grant, Edward. (1974) A Source Book in Medieval Science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
 Lindberg, David C. (1980) Science in the Middle Ages.  Chicago History of Science & Medicine; 
 Rubenstein, Richard E. (2004)  Aristotle's Children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Middle Ages.  Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 
 Théry, G. (1926)  Autour du décret de 1210: II, Alexandre d'Aphrodise. Aperçu sur l'influence de sa noétique.  Kain, Belgium.
 Woods, Thomas. (2005)  How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.  Washington, DC: Regnery;

External links
Duhem, Pierre, "History of Physics", from the Catholic Encyclopedia
"Right, for the wrong reason" from The Economist.
Thijssen, Hans, "Condemnation of 1277" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Catholic Church and science
University of Paris
13th-century Christianity
Medieval Paris
Christianity in Paris
13th century in France