Sixtee,tlh CenturyJorntalXXXIII/2 (2002)

A Reinterpretation of the Fifth LateranCouncil Decree Apostolicd regiminis (1513)

EricA. Conistantt

Micltigan State University

The promulgation of the Fifth Lateran Council decree Apostolici regiiniiis (1513) tra-

ditionally is understood as having been motivated by opposition to teachings on the

soul, taught by Pietro Pomponazzi and certain secularAristotelian philosophers of the

day.The decree is also construed as representing the Catholic church's formal dog-

matic declaration of the individual immortality of the rational soul.This article argues

that while Pomponazzi and his colleagues are likely to have been the decree's primary

antagonists,Apostolici reginintis is not a dogmatic declaration on immortality but rather

a dogmatic condemnation of the so-called doctrine of the double truth. Building

upon this notion, the article proposes certain revisions to the traditional understand-

ing of the decree and its historical context.

PROMULGATED ON I9 DECEMBER 15I3 at the Eighth Session of the Fifth Lateran

Council (1512-17), the papal bull Apostolici reginiinis stands out as one of the few

doctrinal decisions of that predominantly political and reform-minded council., It

has traditionally been understood that the teachings on the soul by Pietro Pompo-

nazzi and certain other secularAristotelian philosophers instigated this decree. Fur-

thermore, this decree has commonly been understood as representing the Catholic

church's formal dogmatic declaration of the individual immortality of the soul. In

this essay I shall argue that Apostolici regimiitis is not a dogmatic declaration on

1 The ful text of the decreeApostolid regiminiis is printed inJ. D. Mansi (cont. byJ.B. Martin and

L. Petit) Sacroumm concilionrin nova et amplissimia collectio...., 53 vols. (Florence,Venice, Paris, Leipzig,

1759-1927), vol. 32 (Venice, 1773), cols. 842-83.The main text is also published, with an English

translation, in Decrees of the Ecamtenjical Councils, 2 vols., ed. Norman P.Tanner, SJ. (London: Sheed &

Ward; Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990), which is a reproduction and new

facing-page translation of G. Alberigo et al., Concdlionun oecmtenicorsmr deaeta, 3d ed. (Bologna: Istituto

per le scienze religiose, 1973); here 1:605-6. The text of the decree has been included here in the

appendix below. On the editions of the decree see the introduction to the appendix below.With the

exception of a few passages not included in Tanner, Decrees, and one other slight exception (which is

noted), the English translation of Tanner, Decrees, has been followed for this essay. For general

background to the Fifth Lateran Council see 0. de la Brosse et al., Latran V et Trente, Histoire des

conciles oecumeniques, 10 (Paris: Editions de l'Orante, 1975), 13-114; also, Nelson H. Minnich, The

Fifth Lateran Coucdil (1512-17): Studies on Its Membiership, Diplomacy and Proposalsfor Reform (Aldershot:

Variorum, 1993). On the council's reform efforts see especially HubertJedin,A History of the Cou,zidl of

Trent, vol. 1, trans. Dom Ernest Graf, O.S.B. (St. Louis: Herder, 1957), 106-38; Minnich, "Concepts of

Reform Proposed at the Fifth Lateran Council,"Archivvim Historiae Pont tficiae 7 (1969):.163-251, repr.

with the same pagination in Minnich, Fjitlz Laterant Council. Also useful are vols. 6-8 of Ludwig von

Pastor, History of the Popes, 40 vols., vol. 6, ed. and trans. Frederick Ignatius Antrobus, vols. 7-8, ed. and

trans. Francis Ralph Kerr (1895-) (I use the 1923 Herder edition); and vol.8 of Karl-Joseph von Hefele,

Histoire des condles d'apres les docueneties origiiaux, 1 1 vols., trans. from the German Concdlieuigeschichte into

French and ed. Dom H. Leclerq, cont. by CardinalJ. Hergenroether (Paris: Letouzey, 1917).

353

354 Sixteentth CenitiuryJouirnal )MXIII/2 (2002)

immortality but rather a dogmatic condemnation of the so-called doctrine of thedouble truth.2 Building upon this notion I shall propose certain revisions to the t-a-ditional understanding of the bull and its historical context.

Without naming specific offenders, Apostolici regiminiis begins by stating thatthere recently has been the spread of some "very pernicious errors," especially onthe nature of the soul, and that there were some careless philosophers who heldthese erroneous doctrines as "true, at least according to philosophy."The bull thencondemns all who would deny the individual immortality of the human soul orsuggest doubts on these matters.The decree states that the human soul not onlyexists of itself and is the form of the human body, citing the 1311 Council ofVienne, but that the soul is also immortal and that-it is multiplied, for each man,instead of being one among all men. Because "truth cannot contradict truth," thebull then states that every statement contrary to the truth of faith is totally false,strictly forbids anyone to teach otherwise, and orders that anyone who clings tosuch erroneous statements be considered a heretic and punished accordingly. Next,the bull proposes two remedies for these errors. The first requires philosophy pro-fessors to clarify the truth of the Christian religion when explaining the doctrinesof other philosophers that are known to contradict church doctrine, and to refutesuch contradictory doctrines as far as they are able. This first remedy is regarded asonly a short-term solution;Apostolici regimiinis's long-term solution mandates that allthose in sacred orders, religious or otherwise, who wish to study philosophy orpoetry for longer than five years must also study theology or canon law at the sametime, thereby allowing the "infected sources of philosophy and poetry" to becleansed. Following its main text,Apostolici regiminis is followed by a short passagewhich indicates that the decree was passed nearly unanimously, with only twomembers of the general assembly expressing any reservations.3

In his 1849 work, Averroes et L'Averrofsme, Ernest Renan viewed Apostoliciregiminis as being aimed directly towards the Italian "Averroist" philosophers,because of their views on the soul.4 During the latter half of the fifteenth century

2Christopher Martin, "On a Mistake Commonly Made in Accounts of Sixteenth-CenturyDiscussions of the Immortality of the Soul,'Anierican Catholic Plhilosophical Quarterly 69 (1995): 29-38,argues against the commonly held view that Apostolici regitiinis dogmatically declares that theimmortality of the soul could be demonstrated philosophically. Martin argues that the text of the bullmakes no such claim.While in some ways related to Martin's position, the argument in this essay isdifferent. Martin argues that the bull makes no claims for philosophical demonstrability, but does notaddress the position that the bull makes a dogmatic declaration on immortality in a religious sense. Myposition is that Apostolici reginzitnis issues no dogmatic declaration concerning any aspect of theimmortality of the soul-in either a philosophical or religious sense.

3 This passage on the voting and objections is not included in Tanner, Decrees. See Mansi, Sacronin,coticlion,rn nova, vol. 32, col. 843, and app., 378-79, nos. 17-20, below.

4 Ernest Renan,Avcrroes et L1Averrolsine, essai historiqtue (Paris, 1849), 362-66. In this essay Igenerally avoid using the term "Averroists" to refer to the antagonists of the bull except when describingother works that use the term or when it otherwise seems appropriate.John Monfasani has pointed outsome of the difficulties in using the terms "Averroism" and "Averroists" to describe Renaissancephilosophy. In one sense all secular Aristotelian philosophers of the time might be considered Averroistssince they all read Averroeis and in large part read Aristotle through Averroes. However, even if we nar-row our focus only to Averroes' doctrine of the unity of the intellect, difficulties remain. For example,

Constant. / Reiniterpretationt of "Apostolici regiiiniis" (1513) 355

and into the sixteenth, a number of secular Aristotelian philosophy professors, cen-

tered at the University of Padua, had been teaching a number of controversial

philosophical doctrines, often following the commentaries of Averroes or Alex-

ander of Aphrodisias. 5 While Renan closely associated with the decree the later

controversy surrounding Pietro Pomponazzi's De iniiiiortalitate aniiiae (published in

151 6,three years after the promulgation of the bull), he did not make the claim that

Pomponazzi was individually the council's target and felt that the condemnations

were directed towards the Averroists collectively. Ludwig von Pastor, however, rec-

ognized that Pomponazzi's teachings on the soul were probably well known for

some time prior to the publication of his De iniiortalitate aniinae, and therefore,

definitely could have incited the bull. Thus, Pastor argued that the bull was aimed

not only at the Averroists (and Alexandrists) as a group, but was likely directed spe-

cifically at the teachings on the soul of that group's most famous member, Pietro

Pomponazzi. 6 Agreeing thatApostolici regimninis was likely directed against the teach-

ings on the soul by these Italian secular Aristotelians, Paul Oskar Kristeller sug-

gested en passant that Platonism, particularly through the influence of Marsilio

Ficino, may have been a significant factor leading up to the decree.7

In 1967 an alternate line of interpretation was suggested by Felix Gilbert.8

Although he recognized that Platonist elements may have contributed to the

decree, Gilbert argued that the decree was primarily a mandate against humanism

and was not to be regarded as directed towards any particular philosophical school,

individual, or single doctrine. He proposed that certain churchmen were reacting

to what they regarded as humanist laicizing tendencies, which they perceived to

have promoted the growth of a number of errors that contradicted or expressed

Monfasani points out that the philosophers NicolettoVernia,Agostino Nifo, and Pietro Pomponazzi,

who often are referred to as Averroist or as takingAverroist positions on the soul, either never accepted

the Averroist position on the soul or after initial acceptance eventually rejected the school. See John

Monfasani, "The Averroism ofJohn Argyropoulos and His Quaesfio Utninm Intellecdus Humiianuss Sit Perpe-

ttis,' ITatti Stuidies: Essays in the Renaissanice 5 (1993): 157-208, at 164-66. OnVernia and Nifo see in

particular Edward P. Mahoney, "NicolettoVernia on the Soul and Immortality'" in Philosophy and

Hu,nanisimi: Renaissanice Essays in Honor of Pail Oskar Kristeller, ed. Edward P. Mahoney (NewYork:

Columbia University Press, 1976), 144-63, and idem, "Nicoletto Vernia and Agostino Nifo on Alex-

ander ofAphrodisias:An Unnoticed Dispute' Rivista critica distoria dellafilosofia 23 (1968): 268-96.5 The bibliography for this is much too large to cite here; see for instance, Giovanni Di Napoli,

L'intunortalita dell'animiia del Rinascimnento (Torino: Societa editrice internazionale, 1963);Antonio Poppi,

Introduzioie all'aristotelismno padovano (Padua: Antenore, 1970); Dominick A. lorio, Thle Aristotelians of

Renaissanice Italy:A Philosophical Exposition (Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen Press, 1991),105-289.6 Pastor, History of the Popes, 8:389.7See Paul Oskar Kristeller,"The Theory of Immortality in Marsilio Ficino,'Journal of the History

of Ideas 1 (1940): 299-319, at 317; also idem, Tle Plilosophy of Marsilio Fidino, trans.Virginia Conant(NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1943),347; and idem, Eig,lt Phzilosophers of thle Italian Renaissa,ice

(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964),46-47. It should also be said that Giovanni Di Napoli made

a similar observation that Platonism was behind the decree. On Ficino's Thteologia Platonica being a

response to Averroism, see John Monfasani, "Aristotelians, Platonists and the Missing Ockhamists:Philosophical Liberty in Pre-Reformation Italy,' Renaissance Quarterly 46 (1993): 247-76, at 267-68.

8 Felix Gilbert, "Cristianesimo, umanesimo e la bolla 'Apostolici Regiminis,"' Rivista storica italiania

79 (1967): 976-90.

356 Sixteenth CentuiryJournal XIII/2 (2002)

implicit doubt in church doctrine.9 Gilbert thus suggested that the bull's condem-nation regarding the soul may have been incited by the 1500 Aldine printing ofLucretius (which contains arguments against immortality), and that the bull's disci-plinary passages were directed against the humanist educational curriculum. Onthis basis Gilbert concluded thatVincenzo Quirini and Tommaso Giustiniani, twoinfluential reformers suspicious of humanism as well as most pagan literature, werethe most probable instigators or even authors of the bull. 10 Although Gilbert's viewhas had some adherents, the majority of scholars who have addressed this decreehave agreed in varying degrees with the views of Renan and Pastor as well as thoseof Kristeller. 1

Another standard understanding of the bull, largely related to views concern-ing its historical genesis, is that Apostolici regiininis represents the church's formaldogmatic declaration of the individual immortality of the soul. This is the statedposition of Pastor, Kristeller, Hubert Jedin, Martin Pine, and Richard Shoeck, andit is a standard view commonly presented by general studies, whether of churchhistory or Renaissance philosophy.12 The argument here, however, is that the bullis not in fact a dogmatic pronouncement on the individual immortality of the soul.Instead, it dogmatically declares that every statement contrary to the truth of faithis false, thereby condemning as heresy any conception or use of the so-called doc-

9 Gilbert, "Cristianesimo:' 976-79. Although Pastor, History of thte Popes, 8:390,does seem to haveregarded the bull as being primarily directed towards Pomponazzi and the Italian "Averroists" 'heproposes that it was partly an attack against humanism as well.

0Gilbert, "Cristianesimo '986-90.11'n support of Gilbert's position see:John Headley,"Tommaso Campanella andjean de Launoy:

The Controversy overAristotle and His Reception in the West,' Renaissantce Quarterly 43 (1990): 529-50, at 534; andJ. B. Ross, "Gasparo Contarini and His Friends,' Studies in the Renaissance 17 (1970):192-232, at 225 n. 141. In support of the Renan-Pastor view, see: Hefele, Histoire des conciles, 8:419-21; De la Brosse, Latran V et Trente, 86-91; HubertJedin, Ecumenical Countils of the Catholic ChurcI:AnHistorical Outline, trans. Dom Ernest Graf, O.S.B. (Freiburg: Herder, 1960), 138-41; GeorgeVass, "TheImmortality of the Soul and Life Everlasting' The HeythropJournal:A Quarterly Review of Plhilosophy and

Theology 6 (1965): 270-88, esp. 272-75;John O'Malley, SJ., Giles of Viterbo on Church and Reform:AStudy in Renaissantce Tl7ozght (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 7-8, 41-48; Richard J. Schoeck, "The Fifth LateranCouncil: Its Partial Successes and Its Larger Failures," in Reform and Authority in the Medieval andReformation Clmrct, ed. Guy Fitch Lyde (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press,1981), 99-126, at 117; and lorio,Aristotelians of Renaissantce Italy, 173-75.This seems to be the consensusamong general studies as well. See for instance, Frederick Copleston, SJ.,A History of Phlilosophy, vol. 3,Late Medieval and Renaissantce Plhilosophy (New York: Doubleday, 1963), 221, 226; Brian P. Copenhaverand Charles B. Schmitt, Renaissantce Plhilosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 54, 108.Kristeller's suggestion that Platonism was behind the bull has been followed recently by Monfasani,"Aristotelians, Platonists' 247-76.

"2Pastor, History of the Popes, 8:389-90; Kristeller, Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino, 347; also Paul OskarKristeller, "Two Unpublished Questions on the Soul of Pietro Pomponazzi ' Stidies in RenaissantceThoiught and Letters, 3 vols. (Rome: Edizione di storia e letteratura, 1956-93), 3:359-92 at 364, repr.fiom Medievalia et Hmianistica 9 (1955): 76-101,and Medievalia et Humanistica 10 (1956): 15; idem, EightPlhilosophers, 46-47;Jedin, Eacmenical Coitnils, 139; Martin Pine, "Pomponazzi and the Problem of theDouble Truth,'Journal of the History of Ideas 29 (1968): 163-76 at 170; idem, Pietro Pomponazzi:RadicalPhilosopher of the Renaissantce (Padua: Antenore, 1986), 59-62; and Schoeck, "Fifth Lateran Council:'117. For general studies that present this view see: Copenhaver and Schmitt, Renaissantce and Phtilosophy,108; Hans-George Beck et al., From te Heigh MiddleAges to the Eve of the Reformtation, vol. 4 of Handbookof Clhrth History (NewYork: Herder & Herder, 1970), 564.

Constant / Reinterpretation of' "Apostolici regininiis" (1513) 357

trine of the double truth. This position becomes apparent when the historical cir-

cumstances surrounding the promulgation of the bull are informed by a closereading of the text of the decree.

Whether or not the bull is seen as a dogmatic pronouncement on immortality,it can nevertheless be established that Florentine Platonism and its doctrine on the

soul was probably a major factor in the creation of Apostolici regininiis. From the

work on Giles of Viterbo by John O'Malley and from John Monfasani's work on

philosophical liberty in pre-Reformation Italy,it is possible to reconstruct much ofthe process through which Apostolici regimiinis was drafted and promulgated. 1 3 This

reconstruction confirms Kristeller's suggestion by demonstrating, independently ofany interpretation of the bull's content, that the decree was likely profoundly influ-enced by Platonism and particularly by Ficino's. doctrine on the soul.

The process through which Apostolici reginuiniis was created consists of three

main stages: (1) the initial decision to proceed with such a bu11,(2) the drafting of

the bull, and (3) the debate, final changes, and general approval of the bull. 14

Although not much is known concerning the specific procedures or discussions thatpreceded the drafting of the decrees, it is clear that it was almost exclusively the

province of the pope and his inner circle to decide not only what topics were to be

considered at the council but also to outline in detail what was to be enacted in each

session.15 Because of this papal domination of the council, it is quite significant thatthe pope at the time of the Eighth Session had particularly strong ties to FlorentinePlatonism. First, Leo's father, Lorenzo de' Medici, had been the patron of Ficino.While Leo may have been too young to have studied under Ficino, it is known that

Leo was personally close to and perhaps studied under Ficino's student, the Platonistteacher Francesco da Diacceto.16 As a young man, the future pope Giovanni de'

Medici was also on friendly terms with Georgius Benignus, a Franciscan Scotisttheologian who had been greatly influenced by Ficino and Platonism.17

130'Malley, Giles of Viterbo. Monfasani, "Aristotelians, Platonists."14 0n the process see Philip Hughes, )Te Chugrchl in Crisis:A History of the General Cointils, 325-

1870 (Garden City, N.Y.: Hanover House, 1961), 291-92, and Nelson H. Minnich, "Paride de Grassi's

Diary of the Fifth Lateran Council,"Awnuariu,n Cotidiliontt Historiae 14 (1982): 370-460, esp. 450-57.15 The papal control over the topics to be discussed reflects a general theme of papal dominance at

the Lateran Council. With the failure of the Pisan conciliabhnlzi, the papacy seized the opportunity to

reassert its dominance over the church. Pope Julius's bull that called the council advanced the position

that only the pope could rightfully summon a general or ecumenical council. Held in the popes' own

basilica, this position of papal supremacy and dominance continued throughout the course of the

council. See, for instance, Schoeck, "Fifth Lateran Council;' 122-24, and Minnich, "Paride de Grassi's

Diary' 451.16See Monfasani, "Aristotelians, Platonists,' 268; and also Paul Oskar Kristeller, "Francesco Da

Diacceto and Florentine Platonism in the Sixteenth Century,' Stndies, 1:287-336, reprinted from

Miscellanea Giova,nni Mercati 6 (Vatican City, 1946),260-304.17 See M. Davis Price, "The Origins of Lateran V's Apostolici regimniiis,"Anttarium Coneiliontin

Historiae 17 (1985): 465-74, at 469-70, and Monfasani, "Aristotelians, Platonists" '269. Benignus spent

part of his youth in the household of the famous Platonist Cardinal Bessarion and also participated on

the Platonist side in the Plato-Aristode controversy.After Bessarion's death,Benignus taught for a time

at Florence with Ficino, where he met up widh the young Giovanni de' Medici.

358 Sixteenitih CetutiryJouiral XXXIII/2 (2002)

Furthermore, as Pope Leo X seems to have greatly admired Giles of Viterbo,the prior general of theAugustinian Hermits during the order's most prestigious era,Giles of Viterbo was held in high esteem at the papal courts of both Pope Julius IIand Pope Leo X. Giles had been a trusted personal advisor to Julius, was entrustedby both Juius and Leo with a number of important diplomatic and religious mis-sions, and in 1517 Leo would make him a cardinal. 1 8 In addition to his politicalconnections, Giles was also a highly respected theologian and philosopher.' 9 Partic-ularly influenced by Florentine Platonism,2 0 Giles of Viterbo was bitterly opposedto certain "Paduan" and "Averroist" positions, and it was well known that he wasparticularly scornful of Pomponazzi. Giles had been urging that actions be takenagainst the Paduan Aristotelians for at least a year prior to Apostolid reginlinis.21 Withhis intellectual reputation and position of influence at the Roman Curia, Giles ofViterbo seems to have had the ear of the pope, and thus it would not be at allunlikely that it was in large part through his urgings that Leo instigated this decree.

UnderJulius II the Lateran Council's decrees were formulated and draftedunder very tight curial control.22 However, upon his election to the papacy, Leo Xdecided that while the Curia would still determine what was to be decreed, theactual drafting of the decrees would be entrusted to small, fairly representative sub-committees.While this arrangement was somewhat more accommodating to epis-copal interests than the procedure under Julius II had been, Leo was still able tomaintain significant control over the makeup of each commnittee and the draftingof the decree.23 It is not surprising that the committee responsible for draftingApostolici regimiiinis had a significant element that was receptive to Leo's Platonismand his philosophical views on the soul. 24 First, Leo's old friend Georgius Benig-nus, at that time titular bishop of Nazareth, sat on the conmiittee.25 A Greek emi-gre,Alexmus Celadenus, who was the bishop of Molfetta and an apostolic secretary,

18O'MaDey, Giles of V4terbo, 4-7.19For example, see O'MaDey, GCles of Viterbo, 7-11.20O'Mafley, Giles of Vnterbo, see for instance 7-8,49-55.21O'MaDey, Giles of Viterbo, 41-49.22Minnich,"Paride de Grassi's Diary," 448-51.23For the committees set up during Leo's tenure, see Mansi, Sacronimni conilioumi, vol. 32, cols.

796-97. On 3 June 1513 Leo formed three committees responsible for the formation and drafting ofthe conciliar decrees. One deputation considered matters concerning peace among Christian princesand schism; another the reform of the church; another matters pertaining to the faith as well thePragmatic Sanction. Each committee consisted of twenty members: eight archbishops and bishopselected by the bishops present at the council, eight cardinals chosen by the pope, and four other prelates(two curial bishops and two generals of religious orders) also selected by the pope. Leo also appointeda cardinalitial conmmission to oversee the final formulation of each committee's first draft decrees. SeeHughes, 290-91, Minnich, "Paride de Grassi's Diary," 451-53, and Minnich, "Prophecy and the FifthLateran Council (1512-1517)" in Prophetic Ronme in the Hig)l Renaissatice Period, ed. Marjorie Reeves(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992),63-87 at 80-81.

24For the list of the prelates who sat on this committee (on the faith and the Pragmatic Sanction),see Mansi, Saaronins concilion fil, vol. 32, col. 797. For biographical background on these prelates, seeespecialy Price, "Origins' but also Monfasani, "Aristotelians, Platonists.'

25Mansi, Sacrorilit coniciliorim, vol. 32, col. 797; Price, "Origins," 469-70; Monfasani,"Aristotelians, Platonists' 269.

Constant / Reintierpretationt of "Apostolici regitiniis" (1513) 359

and who was also associated with Cardinal Bessarion, sat on the committee as

well.26 Furthermore, another Franciscan Scotist theologian, Antonio Trombetta,

who had held the Scotist chair of metaphysics at Padua and who had been made

bishop of Urbino in 1511, was appointed to the committee. Although apparently

not directly associated with any Platonist circles,Trombetta was one of the more

aggressive and prominent members of a movement among Scotist thinkers which

had begun to argue against Scotus that the immortality of the soul -was philosoph-

ically demonstrable.Trombetta, an important participant in some of the debates on

the soul at Padua near the end of the fifteenth century, was influential in a 1489

edict issued by the bishop of Padua, Pietro Barozzi, against the Paduan secular Aris-

totelians, and in 1496 Trombetta published a refutation of these same Paduan phi-

losophers, entitled Qniaestio de aniniartul hltianiarini plutralitate Catholice contra

Averroymi et sequaces in Stuidio Patavino deter,ninata.27

After being drafted by its conmmission,Apostolici reginziniis would have been read

out before the general congregation of bishops and churchmen gathered at the

council's session. Presided over personally by the pope, this general congregation

publicly debated and voted on each decree. 28 Reflecting the papal dominance over

the drafting process, the final form of approved decrees were promulgated as papal

bulls, each opening with the formula "lulius [or Leo] episcopus servus servorum

Dei, ad perpetuam rei memoriam, sacro approbante concilio." In the case of Apos-

tolici regiimin)is, the general congregation passed the decree with near unanimity

(app., 378-79, nos. 17-19).Despite his probable role in the genesis of the bull, Giles of Viterbo -was not

appointed to the commission that draftedApostolici regiininis, though he was present

at the general congregation which approved the decree.2 9 As one of the more

prominent churchmen in attendance, his influence may have been a significant

factor in the general congregation's nearly unanimous acceptance of the, decree.

Whether his role was in the formation of the decree or in its final approval or both,

the combination of Giles of Viterbo's intellectual allegiances, political influence,

and role at the council has led John O'Malley to conclude that "there is every

2 6 Mansi, Sacronini concdlionin,, vol. 32, col. 797; Price, "Origins:' 470. See also,John Monfasani,

"Alexius Celadenus and Ottaviano Ubaldini:An epilogue to Bessarion's relationship with the court of

Urbino' BibliothsWque d'Hinimanisntie et Reniaissantce 46 (1984): 95-110, at 100-110, repr. with same

pagination in Byzanttinie Sciholars inl Renaissanice Italy: Cardinial Besaridn an;d Otilier Emigre's: Selected Essays

(Aldershot:Variorum, 1995), and Nelson E. Minnich, "Alexios Caladenus: A Disciple of Bessarion in

Renaissance Italy,' Historical Reflectionis 15 (1988): 51-64.2 7 Mansi, Sacrornm coniciliorinti, vol. 32, col. 797. See, Price, "Origins:' 465-67; Monfasani,

"Aristotelians, Platonists ' 264-70; and Paul F. Grendler, "Intellectual Freedom in Italian Universities,'

Le contr6le des idees d la renaissanice: Actes dii colloqaue de la FISIER terin, a Montrelal e,, septetubre 1995

(Geneva: Droz, 1996),31-48.28The standard procedure for the council was for credula or drafts of the decrees to be read out to

the council fathers for debate and ratification. Interestingly for the council's Eighth Session, Leo

presented the assembled fathers not with credilda but with final bulls. Although Leo in this case did

promise to revise any bul if the general assembly found it necessary, it is difficult to determine if or to

what extent any bull was revised; see Minnich,"Paride de Grassi's Diary," 456.29 Mansi, Sacrornim concilionutn, vol. 32, col. 831.

360 Sixteenthi Century Jounial XXXII/2 (2002)

reason to believe that he supported, or even promoted, the Fifth Lateran Council'scondemnations which were attributed to this school [Padua]." 30

While Monfasani certainly acknowledges the important role of certain indi-viduals at the council, particularly Leo X, Giles of Viterbo, Benignus, and Trom-betta, the decree's nearly unanimous passage has led him to conclude that agrowing common hostility among the Italian educated class to philosophicaldoubts about the immortality of the soul was also key to its passage. This commonhostility was largely due to the influence of Florentine Platonism and Ficino's doc-trine on the soul.The movement increasingly permeated Italian intellectual circlesthroughout the latter half of the fifteenth century, and it gained important institu-tional force upon Giovanni de' Medici's ascension to the papal throne as Leo X.Citing also the absence of any significant Italian Ockhamist theological traditionwhich might have opposed such a measure, Monfasani sees the Platonists and therevisionist Scotists joining forces with the Thomists to overpower the secular Aris-totelians and secure the passage of Apostolici regiminiis.?

* * *

Having established that Platonism was ]ikely a significant factor in the creation ofthis bull, let us turn to the text itself. Apostolici regilnlinis consists of two main sec-tions; the first is doctrinal and the second is disciplinary.32 After a few formulaicopening passages, the doctrinal portion ofApostolici regininiis begins with a lamentthat the faithful are being afflicted by the "sower of cockle, the ancient enemy ofthe human race, who "has dared to scatter and multiply in the Lord's field someextremely pernicious errors, which have always been rejected by the faithful" (app.,377, no. 3). Among these errors, the most troubling are those concerning thenature of the rational soul, such as the claims that it is mortal or that there is onlyone soul among all men. Largely responsible for promoting these errors are "some,playing the philosopher without due care" who assert that these things are true, "atleast according to philosophy."Wishing to apply suitable remedies against this "pes-tilence," the council fathers then "condemn and reject all those who insist that theintellectual soul is mortal, or that it is one among all human beings, and those whosuggest doubts on this topic."This first passage then continues, first repeating the1311 Council of Vienne decree that had declared that the soul truly exists of itselfand is the form of the body, followed by a confirmation that the soul is in factimmortal and individual, being multiplied for each body.33 These doctrines, the

30 0'Maley, Giles of Viterbo, 7.31 Monfasani, "Aristotelians, Platonists ' esp. 269-70. Price, "Origins;' 471-72, similarly observes

that while there was an important Platonism element behind the decree, there was also a significantThomist and Scotist Aristotelian element present on the drafting commission.

3 2 This twofold division was recognized by the council itself; in the Mansi text, the passagecontaining the vote and the objectionsjust following the bull's main text refer to the last portion of thedecree as the second part of the bull; see app., 379, no. 19.

33 For the Council of Vienne decree to which this passage refers, see Tanner, Coumidls, 1:360-61;and app., 377, no. 4.

Constant / Reiniterpretationl of "Apostolid regininiis" (1513) 361

bull claims, are clearly established from the scriptures, and indeed from the words

of Christ himself. If the soul was not individually immortal, the council fathers

argue, then of what benefit would be the Incarnation or Resurrection or the other

mysteries of Christ?This passage from the doctrinal section provides strongest support for the stan-

dard interpretation that with Apostolici reginiiinis the church dogmatically declared

the doctrine of individual immortality against the teachings on the soul by certain

philosophers. It is clear from this passage that the council fathers certainly regardedthe individual immortality of the soul as dogma.While determining what specifi-

cally constitutes dogma can be somewhat tricky, at its most basic level it can be saidthat a dogma is an official church teaching on faith or morals understood to repre-

sent revealed truth and solemnly proclaimed in a manner that is clearly intended to

be binding on the full community of faithful and expressed in such a way as to be

clear that denial is heresy.34 Thus, when Apostolici reginittis states, "hoc sacro appro-

bante concilio damnamus et reprobamus omnes asserentes animam intellectivammortalem esse, aut unicam in cunctis hominibus et haec in dubium vertentes"

(app., 377, no. 3), it is clearly indicating that the doctrine of individual immortality

is considered to be a dogma.While there is no doubt that individual immortality is presented as a dogma in

Apostolid regimintis, this bull cannot be seen as a dogmatic proclamation on the soul

because it makes no statement concerning the soul that can be understood as con-

stituting an intended declaration of dogma.With regard to the soul, nowhere does

Apostolid regilntinis employ terms such as "define:' "decree:' or "declare"-terms

one should properly expect to find in a statement intended to issue a declaration of

church dogma. If there is any statement from the entire bull that could be seen to

declare personal immortality dogmatically, it would have to be the text that reads:

with the approval of the sacred council, we condemn and reject all thosewho insist that the intellectual soul is mortal, or that it is one among all

human beings, and those who suggest doubts on this topic. For the soul

not only truly exists of itself and essentially as the form of the human body... but it is also immortal; and further, for the enormous number of

bodies into which it is infused individually, it can and ought to be and is

multiplied. (App., 377, nos. 3-4)

This statement is not a dogmatic pronouncement, because it is neither in the

form of nor does it contain the language of a solemn dogmatic proclamation.

Although the phrase "dainnaniiiis et reprobanmus" indicates that this doctrine is con-

3 4See, for example, Daniel Coghlan, "Dogma," Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:89-91; E. Dublanchy,

"Dogme," Dictionnaire de Tl1eologie Catloliqse, 4:1574-1650, esp. 1575-79, and Ludwig Ott,

Fundainentals of Catlholic Dogtna, 4th ed., trans. Patrick Lynch (Rockford, IlI.:TAN Books, 1974), 3-10.It might be argued that the specific criteria for deterrnining what constitutes dogma was not officially

defined until the FirstVatican Council (1869-70).The definition presented here, however, is quite basic

and seems reasonable for determining whether a doctrine was considered dogmna, even when applied to

the early-sixteenth-century church.

362 Sixteentith CentityJoural XXXIII/2 (2002)

sidered dogma, it does not constitute a declaration of that dogma; in other words,the council fathers did not here issue the dogmatic declaration of that doctrinebecause they assumed that personal immortality already existed as a dogmna of thechurch. This is clearly expressed through the language in this first passage of Apos-tolici regiminiis. Employing seniper along with a perfect participle, the denial ofimmortality is described as being among those most wicked errors recently beingspread "which have always been rejected by the faithful" (errores afidelibus semnperexplosos) (app., 377, no. 3). Moreover, the bull states that immortality is "clearlyestablished from the gospel" and indeed by Christ's own words (app., 378, nos. 5-6).The council fathers also seem to consider personal immortality as being neces-sarily presupposed by such crucial doctrines as the Resurrection of the Dead andeternal rewards and punishments. 3 5 The bull's passages on the soul should at mostbe understood as the confirmation of an ancient dogma restated in terms designedto counter the current philosophical challenges to the doctrine. 36

Although it may be true that there was no official church decree prior toApos-tolici reginiiiiis that so explicitly or directly states the doctrine of individual immor-tality, it is not difficult to see how the council fathers might nevertheless haveregarded it as a doctrine that already existed as dogmna. As the bull itself indicates,the individual immortality of the soul has obvious scriptural bases.37 The bull alsoindicates that immortality can be seen as a necessary prerequisite for such funda-mental Christian doctrines as the Resurrection of the Dead and eternal rewardsand punishments. 3 8 These fundamental tenets of Christianity were clearly estab-lished as dogma by the earliest ecumenical councils, particularly at Nicea and Con-stantinople, and were regularly expressed as part of the liturgy.3 9 Thus, it seemsreasonable for the council fathers to have understood the immortality of the soul

35 This is evident in app., 378, no. 7: without individual immortality "the incarnation and othermysteries of Christ would be of no benefit to us, nor would resurrection be sometling to look forwardto, and the saints and the just would be (as the Aposde says) the most nmiserable of all people:'

36This is how the church annalist Odorico Raynaldi viewed Apostolid regitminis's condemnationson the soul.Writing in 1663 on the Fifth Lateran Council, Raynaldi briefly describes the errors on thesoul asserted by certain philosophers and goes on to state: "e Concilii sententia confirmatum estantiquum fidei orthodoxae dogma, animam esse immortalem, in singulis distinctam numero, creari aDeo, efformatis iam corporibus, uti inViennensi Synodo declaratum fuerat..."; Odorico Raynaldi,Annales Exlesiastiai post Baroniui ab anno 1198 ad anuwnul 1565,37 vols., ed. and rev.J. D. Mansi and A.Theiner (Paris, 1877), vol.31, nos. 92-93.

37 App., 378, nos. 5-7, quotes from or refers to Matt. 10:28, 25:46,John 12:25, and I Cor. 15:19,as cited byTanner, Dearees. On the uses of sacred scripture by the council see Minnich, "The Functionof Sacred Scripture in the Decrees of the Fifth Lateran Council,"Anuarinzn CoGndlionmn Historiae 18(1986):319-29, esp. 326-27, which specifically treatsApostolici regiminis in this regard.

8Individual immortality can also be seen to be presupposed by a number of other doctrines suchas Purgatory, the efficacy of prayers for the dead, and indulgences, among others.

Profession of faith fiom the Council of Nicea, 325: "[He is coming] to judge the living and thedead" (iudicare vivos et inorttos). Profession of faith from the Council of Constantinople, 381: "He iscoming again with glory to judge the living and the dead; his kingdom will have no end" (ventitns Conogloria indicare vivos et moruos; enius regini two eritfinis), and "We look forward to the resurrection of thedead and the life in the world to come" (expectanis resonretionetn nortioonitn et vitarnfnituri saecult);Tanner,Decrees, 1:5,24.

Constant / Reiniterpretationi of "Apostoliciregiiniiis" (1513) 363

to be official dogma, at least by virtue of its perceived necessity for those other doc-

trines.4 0 Furthermore, individual immortality could be seen as being supported by

various authorities, particularly that of Saint Augustine in his De inllnortalitate

anininae.41

The manner in which Apostolici regiminiis presents individual immortality as a

dogma having been already defined, particularly the absence of terms such as

"define:' "decree" or "declare" in passages describing immortality, is all the more

striking when we turn to the next passage of the doctrinal section of the text. Fol-

lowing the condemnations and statement of the doctrine of immortality in the first

passage of the doctrinal section,Apostolid regiminiis continues:

And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define (definiitnufs) that every

statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and

we stricdy forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted.We decree (decerfli-

inms) that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus

sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every

way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are

undermining the catholic faith. (App., 378, nos. 8-9)

Here is an almost ideal model for a formal declaration of dogma. As in the

condemnation on the soul at the beginning of the bull, this passage clearly

describes a dogmna since it indicates that anyone who rejects this doctrine is to be

considered a heretic and punished accordingly. Unlike the condemnation on the

soul, however, this statement is clearly intended to be a formal declaration. Here

the terms defininullls and deceriin:us are both used, clearly indicating that this second

passage is meant to be seen as a new, formal, and solemn decision of the church.

Thus,Apostolid regiuiniis declares as a dogma of the Catholic faith that "every state-

ment contrary to the enlightened truth of faith is totally false."

By specifying the "truth of faith" and thus implying that other "truths" were

perhaps being proposed, this dogmatic proclamation refers to the so-called doctrine

of the double truth.4 2 According to this idea, one might maintain that a certain

position, such as the mortality of the soul, was true according to philosophy yet at

the same time false according to Catholic doctrine. Although some scholars have

argued that the double truth should be respected as a legitimate intellectual posi-

4 0Many among the educated classes who had even a casual familiarity with theology or religious

doctrine would probably also have made this presumption, as would much of the general laity; see for

instance Andre Vauchez, "Lay Belief around 1200: Religious Mentalities of the Feudal World" in Tle

Laity in the Middle Ages, trans. Margery J. Schneider (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame

Press, 1993), 85-87.4ISaint Augustine of Hippo, 7be Inniortality of the Soul, trans. Ludwig Schopp in vol. 2 of Writings

of Saint Auigustine, vol. 4 of Fathiers of the Chuirch (New York: CIMA, 1947), 3-50; see also Ott,

Funadamiienttals, 98-99.42 For a variety of reasons the phrase "the doctrine of the double truth" to describe conceptions

of the "double truth" can be somewhat problematic. However, because the phrase is in some ways a

conventional term, it is used occasionally in this essay out of convenience.

364 Sixteenith CentutryJournal XXXII/2 (2002)

tion,43 many have suspected that the "double truth" was more often than not ashield devised by philosophers to hide their belief that only philosophic truth rep-resented genuine Truth, especially when that "truth" of philosophy contradictedreligious doctrine.

However, even if held in full sincerity and not intended as a shield, any con-ception of a double truth represents a genuine threat to the church. If one claimsthat a philosophical position that contradicts religious doctrine is only true accord-ing to philosophy, this still creates a rival truth. Since Truth is by definition absolute,having such a rival truth would destroy the very nature of the original truth.Thus,the existence of multiple and competing truths would have the effect of debasingand ultimately destroying the legitimacy of church dogma. By corrupting the abso-lute nature ofTruth, any notion of a double truth attacks the church's authority torepresent genuine and absolute Truth and can essentially legitimize belief in heret-ical doctrines.

However, for a philosopher to hold or teach a philosophical position that con-tradicted religious dogma-even one such as the mortality of the soul-was not initself automatically considered heresy because church authorities generally permit-ted a certain degree of liberty to philosophers.While philosophy might very welllead to an understanding of Truth and thereby supplement religious faith, unlikethe divinely revealed truth of faith, philosophy was susceptible to error because itsconclusions were the products of falible human reasoning.4 4 Thus, provided thathe clearly acknowledge the inferiority of philosophy and acknowledge that thedoctrine of faith necessarily represents Truth, there were several ways in which aChristian philosopher was permitted to maintain a philosophical conclusion con-trary to religious doctrine or dogma and remain an entirely orthodox Christian.Perhaps the most recommended of these means was to present such contrary philo-sophical conclusions only as the historical position of a particular philosopher orschool. It was also generally permissible for such a Christian philosopher to main-tain that philosophy rejects or is unable to demonstrate a particular doctrine offaith. Such academic liberty for philosophers had become the standard practice inacademic environments from at least the early thirteenth century.4 5 However,because it sets up a rival "truth" (and thus does not genuinely recognize thesupremacy of faith) any conception of a double truth violates this normallyaccepted orthodox separation of reason and faith.

From a doctrinal standpointApostoliti reginlinis has several aims. First, it issues aspecific condemnation of errors in regard to the soul and confirms the ancientdogma of the individual immortality of the soul in the terms with which it was cur-

43For example, see Kristeller, Eight Philosophers, 84-90, and idem, "Renaissance Aristotelianism,'Studies 3:342-57 at 348-49, repr. from Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 6 (1965): 157-74.

4 ;Apostolidi regiminis itself says as much; see app., 378, no.11.45see Richard C. Dales, Tle Problem of the Rational Soul in the 77Tirteenth Century (Leiden: Brill,

1995), and idem, "The Origins of the Doctrine of the Double Truth:' Viator 15 (1984): 169-79; StuartMacClintock, Perversity and Error. Studies on the "Averroist"John ofjJandun (Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press, 1956); and also Pine, Pietro Pomponazzi, 17, 110-1 1.

Constant / Reiniterpretatiotn of "Apostolici regi,iniiais" (1513) 365

rently being challenged. These actions were intended only to snuff out the most

glaring and immediately visible errors. In order to eliminate what was regarded as

the fundamental, underlying cause of these errors, the council fathers issued their

dogmatic proclamation. An occasional annoyance in the past, it seems that the

double truth idea was now seen to represent a clear and present danger to religious

orthodoxy, and this error, rather than particular philosophical doctrines, is the fun-

damental concern ofApostolici regininis.46 If the conclusion venuil vero uilulille colntra-

dicat was not enough, by affirming the supremacy of faith and dogmatically

declaring any statement contrary to the truth of faith to be totally false,Apostolici regi-

iniis renders impotent any conception of a double truth for the orthodox Christian.

With this understanding of the doctrinal section, the disciplinary section of

the bull comes into sharper focus. Like the doctrinal section of the bull, the disci-

plinary section ofApostolici regimiinis appears to consist of two primary passages.The

first of these concerns philosophers who teach in public, whether in universities or

in other places. It states that whenever they explain or lecture on those conclusions

or principles of philosophers that are known to contradict or deviate from the con-

clusions of faith (here the decree cites as specific examples the mortality or unicity

of the soul and the eternity of the world), they must clarify the truth of the church's

doctrine by the best arguments possible and also refute the arguments for the con-

trary philosophical position (app., 378, no. 10).While this measure is obviously

meant to deter intentional use of the double truth, it is probably also intended to

eliminate possible confusion or misinterpretation in the case of professors who may

not have intended to employ the double truth, but who might nonetheless have

been seen as doing so by their students.It should be pointed out that neither this restriction on philosophers nor the

bull's dogmatic condemnation of the double truth fundamentally altered the intel-

lectual freedom and liberties traditionally afforded to philosophers. The decree

clearly allows a philosopher to teach an error about the soul as a historical position

or even to assert that the error was not philosophically demonstrable. 4 7 It might

46This "doctrine of the double truth" is most generally associated with the University of Pariscondemnations of 1277. It is unlikely, however, that the "double truth" was actually held by anyphilosopher at Paris in the thirteenth century, and in that case it seems to have been more a creation ofthe condemnation than of any position actually.advanced.Although the "double truth" was sporadicalycondemned throughout the Middle Ages, its condemnation does not seem ever to have been ratified bythe universal church during that time.Thus, this dogmatic declaration of 1513 appears to be the firstuniversal pronouncement (and was apparently regarded as such by the Fifth Lateran fathers) against the"double truth:' On the 1277 Paris condemnation of the "double truth" see especialy Dales,"Originsof the Doctrine of the Double Truth." For the text of the condemnation see H. Denifle and A.Chatelain, eds., Cliariulariu,n Universitatis Parisiensis, 4 vols: (Paris, 1889-97),1:543-55.

47App., 378, no. 10. Grendler, "Intellectual Freedom in Italian Universities:' 36, points out thatthe disciplinary portion of the decree, by demanding Christian philosophers to demonstratephilosophicaly the truths of faith only "so far as this is possible" (et persuiadeido pro posse docere), providesphilosophers considerable latitude and shows that the council fathers recognized the view of somephilosophers who felt that certain truths of faith could not be demonstrated philosophically.Additionally, Martin, "On a Mistake Commonly Made,' shows that Apostolici regiminis does not declarethat the immortality of the soul is philosophicaly demonstrable.

366 Sixteenith CentuiryjJoirnal XXXIII/2 (2002)

possibly be argued, however, that the bull's condemnation regarding the soul for-bids philosophers from arguing that an error was philosophically demonstrable oreven forbids any doubt over its possible demonstrability.48 However, the text of thedecree's condemnation need not necessarily be interpreted in this manner. 49 Theletter of the text clearly condemns only those who assert the mortality or unicityof the soul absolutely or without any acceptable qualification.50 In this way Apos-tolici regiminiis provides philosophers fairly considerable latitude; as long as he treateda contrary philosophical doctrine as only a probable conclusion or a philosophicaltheory and stopped short of asserting it as any sort of truth (or double truth), a phi-losopher could possibly argue for even the apparent philosophical demonstrabilityof a philosophical position contrary to the teaching of faith.

Although in practiceApostolid regininiis might make it more difficult or contro-versial for a philosopher to assert certain errors regarding the soul even as the mereconclusions of philosophy, there is nothing in this bull that truly prevents philoso-phers from maintaining or teaching philosophical positions that contradict religiousdoctrine. In fact, rather than forbid any contrary philosophical teachings per se, thebull's restriction on philosophy professors legitimizes their instruction. It sets limitsfor philosophers, and it even suggests an appropriate manner in which to teachsuch philosophical conclusions within the framework of religious orthodoxy. Inthis respect the bull does little more than officially recognize and define what hadbeen more or less the accepted practice for centuries. Provided they recognize andclearly acknowledge the proper relationship between religion and philosophy, phi-losophers who taught philosophical conclusions that did not agree with religiousdoctrine could be and were still considered orthodox Christians, even followingApostolid reginillis.51

This disciplinary portion ofApostolici reginhiniis is in a spirit similar to an episco-pal decree issued by the bishop of Padua Pietro Barozzi in 1489.52 That episcopaldecree seems to have been primarily motivated by pastoral concerns. Rather thancondemn any philosophical doctrines per se or take sides in the strictly philosoph-ical debate, Barozzi's decree sought primarily to protect the unlearned and vulner-able faithful by suspending public philosophical disputations on the unity of theintellect and other controversial Averroist topics. Public scholarly disputations were

4 8 Minnich,"Paride de Grassi's Diary," 380; Pine, Pietro Pomponazzi, 59-62.4 9 App., 377, no. 3.5 0Monfasani, "Aristotelians, Platonists,' 259.5 1For instance, see the case of Tommaso deVio Cajetan, described below, 372-74. Even

Pomponazzi was ultimately cleared of any charges of heresy. Furthermore, Monfasani, "Aristotelians,Platonists,' 259-60, holds that in Italy, in general, even after Apostolici regimndis, "a tolerant climate ofopinion [with regard to intellectual freedom] was theoretically possible and historically the case'"

5 2 For the text of the 1489 episcopal decree at Padua, see: Francesco Scipione Dondi Dall'Orolo-gio, Dissertazionii sqpra l'istoria cclesiastica di Padova: Dissertazione nona (Padua, 1817), 130-31; PietroRagnisco, Doamne,uti inedihi c rari intoro alla vita ed agli scaitti di Nicoktto Vertnia e di Elia del Medigo (Padua,1891), 8-9. See also, Mahoney, "Nicoletto Vernia on the Soul and Immortality,' esp. 149-50; idem,"Nicoleto Vernia and Agostino Nifo:' at 270-71; Monfasani, "Aristotelians, Platonists' 250-51; andGrendler,"Intellectual Freedom in Italian Universities '32-35.

Constant / Reiniterpretationi of "Apostolici regidninis't (1513) 367

important events in the intellectual life of the university community. Held at irreg-

ular intervals and before an audience gathered in a public place (often a church),

scholarly disputations featured a student of professor who would defend a number

of propositions against anyone in attendance who might wish to argue against him.

A showplace for the oratorical and rhetorical skills of those involved, disputations

had the potential to attract crowds and to generate significant interest among the

laity. This format could easily encourage lively debate, and participants were likely

to defend their positions in the strongest of terms. Particularly because some of

those positions might include the eternity of the world and the unity of the intel-

lect it is not difficult to see why ecclesiastical authorities might be wary of such

public disputations.5In certain respects a sequel to the 1489 Paduan episcopal decree-indeed even

involving a common figure,Antonio Trombetta-Apostolici reginiiiis seems to issue

its disciplinary orders largely out of similar pastoral concerns. 54 Like the 1489

Paduan decree,Apostolici reginiJinis reaffirms the religious doctrine but does not

attempt to resolve the purely philosophical debate.5 5 However, unlike the 1489

decree,Apostolici regintiinis does not condemn public'philosophical disputations out-

right.While the council fathers recognized and allowed for the academic liberties

traditionally granted to philosophers, such liberties could not be permitted to

threaten the faith of the unlearned laity. Thus, attempting to safeguard the faith of

the vulnerable laity while still preserving academic liberties, the bull issues its dis-

ciplinary order enjoining Christian philosophers-whether teaching in universities.

or debating in public disputations-to make clear and to defend the truth of reli-

gious doctrine against contrary philosophical positions.

A close reading ofApostolid regiiniiis's first disciplinary passage also provides fir-

ther support for the position that the council fathers regarded the doctrine of indi-

vidual immortality of the soul (as well as the noneternity of the world) to exist

already as church dogma. Here the bull states that philosophers must defend church

doctrine and refute the philosophical position whenever they teach the conclusions

5 3 0n disputations see: Grendler, "Intellectual Freedom in Italian Universities,' 32-35; Anthony

Kenny and Jan Pinborg, "Medieval Philosophical Literature,' in 7TIe Cambridge History of Later Medieval

Philosophy: From the Rediscovery ofAristotle to the Disintegration of Scholastidsni 1100-1600, ed. Norman

Kretzmann et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 21-29; and Herbert S. Matsen,

"Students'Arts' Disputations at Bologna around 1500: 'Renaissance Quarterly 47 (1994): 533-55.54Very similar pastoral concern for protecting the vulnerable faithful from errors-even utilizing

some of the same metaphorical imagery-is also found in the Fifth Lateran Council's later decrees

against the printing of scandalous books opposed to the faith, and against illicit preaching: Mansi,

Sacronanz comcilionni, vol. 32, cols. 912-13, 944-47;Tanner, Decrees, 1:632-38.5 5 Minnich, "Function of Sacred Scripture,' 326-27, and Siro Offerelli, "II pensiero del concilio

lateranenseV sulla dimonstrabilita razionale dell'immortalita dell'anima umana," Stndia Palavina I

(1954): 7-40, at 39-40, cited by Minnich, "The Function of Sacred Scripture' 327 n. 22. Minnich

points out that Apostolici regiminis appeals to sacred scripture instead of philosophical arguments for

proofs of immortality. In this way, Minnich continues, the Lateran decree is able to affirm church

doctrine without-interfering in philosophical debates and thus avoids offending any major Christian

schools of thought or the religious orders that promoted them.This is because Apostolid regiminiis, like

Barozzi's 1489 decree, was ultimately motivated by religious and not philosophical reasons, and it did

not intend to resolve philosophical debate on the soul.

368 Sixteentthi CenttiryJournal XY II/2 (2002)

of philosophers "where these are iknown to deviate from the true faith-as in theassertion of the soul's mortality or of there being only one soul or of the eternity ofthe world and other topics of this kind" (app., 378, no. 10). For how would it bepossible for the mortality and unicity of the soul and eternity of the world to beamong those doctrines which "are known to deviate from the true faith" if individ-ual immortality had onlyjust been defined in the same document a few lines above?By its usage of the present tense of the verb in the passive voice (nosculltur) todescribe these errors, this passage implies that the denial of individual immortalitywas known to be heresy at the time that the bull was written, thus implying that itwas already regarded as dogma prior to the promulgation of the bull.

Although the bull's statute, that ordered philosophy professors to clarify thetruth of faith, was a significant measure for quashing the double truth and theerrors which it was thought to have produced, the council fathers believed it insuf-ficient. Following this first statute, the disciplinary section of the bull continueswith a second passage: "But it does not suffice occasionally to clip the roots of thebrambles, if the ground is not dug deeply so as to check them beginning again tomultiply, and if there are not removed their seeds and original causes from whichthey grow so easily."5 6 The "seed" or "original cause" of the error of the doubletruth is the prolonged study of hIuniana philosophia, when that study lacks the "fla-voring of divine wisdom and the light of revealed truth." Citing the authority ofthe Apostle, the council fathers state that God has made such study "empty andfoolish"; therefore, such study is sometimes more prone to error than to the discov-ery of Truth. Thus, "in order to suppress all occasions of falling into error withrespect to the matters referred to above,'Apostolici regimlinis issues its second disci-plinary statute. Rather unexpectedly adding restrictions on the study of poetry, thissecond order speaks to all those in sacred orders, "whether religious or seculars orothers so comniitted."The decree here suggests that, when one wishes to continuea program of study after finishing grammar and dialectic, he may study philosophyor poetry for up to five years without comrnitting some time to the study of the-ology or canon law. But after this five year period one is permitted to continue thestudy of philosophy or poetry only if at the same time he actively devotes himselfto studying theology or canon law. This, the bull states, allows for the "Lord'spriests:' through the "holy and useful occupations" of theology and canon law, to"cleanse and heal the infected sources of philosophy and poetry."

Perhaps a way to understand the text of Apostolici regiminiis, taken in full, is toview it in terms of the metaphors that the bull itself employs. Drawing on the gos-pels' parables of the sower and of the cockle, the decree calls upon the imagery of

56App., 378, nos. 11-12. Here, Tanner, Decrees, translates originalesque cautses as "root causes"; Itranslate more literaly as "original causes,' because the use of "root causes" tends to confuse andinterfere with the metaphor of sowing plants in a field, a metaphor that the bull employs by its use ofthe image of vegetative roots (radices). In the bull, radices represents the "double truth." Originalesquie tauJ-ses, on the other hand, are the seeds (sentina) of this root instead of the roots themselves. On thismeraphorical imagery see below, 368-69.

Constant / Reinterpretationi of "Apostolid regininiis" (1513) 369

a sower of cockle scattering weeds throughout the fields of the Lord.57 The weeds

sprouting up and multiplying in the fields of the Lord here represent various doc-

trinal errors taught by certain philosophers, particularly the mortality and unicity

of the soul and the eternity of the world. Although bothersome, these weeds need

not always be detrimental if they are regarded merely as the imperfect conclusions

of philosophy.When combined with the double truth, however, they become very

dangerous and more difficult to kill.Thus,Apostolid regiiniiis represents the double

truth as the common root from which many of these doctrinal errors stem, and it,

more than any weed, poses the greater threat in the fields of the Lord. --

The condemnations and the confirmation of the dogma of immortality at the

beginning of the bull are aimed towards trampling the weeds that lie on the surface

of the Lord's fields.To get beneath these weeds and cut away at their common root,

the bull dogmatically declares that there exists no other truth than the truth of

divinely revealed religious faith. Additionally, the bull orders that all philosophers

clarify and defend the truth of faith whenever they teach philosophical conclusions

contrary to religious teachings. However, the seed from which the double truth

took root still remained, buried deep within the soil. In the decree this seed repre-

sents the prolonged study of philosophy or poetry-when such study lacks the

enlightenment of religious disciplines. Therefore Apostolid regimillis decrees that

such programs of study are to be supplemented by courses in theology or canon law.

Certainly, the bull's condemnation of the double truth has not gone unno-

ticed; indeed, a number of scholars have described it as being among the notewor-

thy elements of the decree. 58 ELudwig von Pastor even regarded the decision

concerning the double truth as a dogmatic declaration, although it should be

pointed out that he regarded most of the bull's measures as "dogmatic constitu-

tions" and assigned the decree on the double truth only secondary importance to

what he saw as the bull's dogmatic definition of the individual immortality of the

soul. 59 Felix Gilbert recognized that by legislating against the double truth the

decree had broader concerns than just a single philosopher or particular philosoph-

ical doctrine.60 Moreover, in an article treating Martin Luther's attitudes toward

the Fifth Lateran Council,John Headley makes several observations concerning

this decree which anticipate the argument advanced here. 61 However, as far as I am

57 The parable of the sower is in al three synoptic gospels: Matt. 13:4-23, Mark 4:1-21, Luke 8:4-

15.The parable of the cockle (also known as the parable of the darnel) is only present in Matt.13:24-

30.As mentioned, this metaphorical imagery is also employed by the'bull to describe errors arising from

and being spread by the printing of scandalous books and by ilicit preaching.5 8 O'MaHey, Giles oj Viterbo, 45; De la Brosse, Latratn V et Trente, 90-91; Monfasani, "Aristotelians,

Platonists' 259-60; Minnich,"Paride de Grassi's Diary' 380.-5 9Pastor, History of the Popes, 8:389-90.6 0 Gilhbert, "Cristianesimo," 978.61John Headley,"Luther and the Fifth Lateran Council,"ArczivfiirRefortnatiotnsgesciichlte 54 (1973):

55-78, at 69.While limiting his essay solely to Luther's treatment of the decree, Headley does offer a

few observations on what may have been intended by the bull's authors: "One may note, however, that

the precise intention of the decree is by no means as clear as might first appear. Is it the proclamadon of

a philosophical theory as an article of faidh? Or is it an instruction ...for the exposition ofAristotle? Per-

haps the decree's center of gravity is not the inmnortality of the soul at aDl but rather that the question

370 Sixteenth CentutryJournal X IIl/2 (2002)

aware, the particular argument presented in this essay, that the bull was primarily adogmatic condemnation of the "double truth" and that it was not any sort of dog-matic proclamation on immortality, has not previously been advanced.62

Why is this? Much of the confusion that surrounds the bull can be explained,at least in part, by the influence of certain interpretations of Apostolici regiinitisduring the years immediately following its promulgation. In particular, by com-pounding the bull's possible ambiguities, Martin Luther's reactions to the bull andthe bull's use in the controversy surrounding Pomponazzi's De inilnlrtalitate ainiaehave clouded the original meaning of the bull.While Luther viewed the entire FifthLateran Council with contempt, he was particularly scornful of the decree Apostoliciregininis.Although he seems to have attacked the decree on several grounds, Luther'smost vehement criticisms were marked by his apparent assumption that Apostoliciregininiis had declared as dogma the imnmortality of the soul. In Luther's mind, thebull had made philosophical theory an article of faith, the implications of which hefound particularly troubling, and in this regard criticism of the bull was repeatedthroughout his career in his polemic against the Catholic church. 63

Perhaps most influential on later interpretations of the bull was the debate sur-rounding Pomponazzi's 1516 treatise De iinuortalitate aniimae and its 1518 sequel,the Apologia.6 4 Pomponazzi and his treatises were denounced from the pulpit, pub-licly banned and burned, and were met by a number of books that attack his argu-ments.While many of his detractors condemned the apparent irreligiousness of theworks, the main battles of the debate were fought primarily among philosopherson largely philosophical grounds.The nature of the debate might help explain why,in the few cases in which the bull Apostolici regininiis was specifically referred toduring the controversy, it was often appealed to as a sort of proof for the philosoph-ical demonstrability of immortality. Although Pomponazzi's apparent lack of faithwas cited by a few as breaking the decrees of the Apostolici regininiis, this is largely

of immortality is merely a pretext for the Church to rule against a philosophy that is disengaging itselffrom the Church" (here Headley cites Gilbert's argument that the laicizing tendencies of humanismwere the bull's primary concern). Headley continues, describing the bull as "a statement that involvedsuch complex issues as the relation of faith to reason, theology to philosophy, the problem of immortal-ity and even the nature of man...."

62 A possible exception may be the annalist Odorico Raynaldi, writing in 1663. As noted,Raynaldi recognized that the bull's condemnations on the soul were not a dogmatic declaration, butinstead that the "ancient dogma of orthodox faith" was only "confirmed" by the decree. Moreover,Raynaldi does recognize the importance of the bull's condemnation of those arguments that claim ateaching to be true according to philosophy, while at the same time false according to theology. Itshould be pointed out that Raynaldi does not seem explicitly to claim that this condemnation of the"double truth" represents a dogmatic declaration; see Raynaldi,Annales Ealesiastid, no. 92.63Luther certainly believed in the doctrine of the Resurrection. However, Luther's thoughtconcerning the immortality of the soul, particularly in the philosophical sense, as weDl as his attitudetoward Apostolici regiminiis are rather complicated matters. These issues are briefly treated by Schoeck,"Fifth Lateran Council," 112, andVass,"lmnortality of the Soul," 275-88, but see Headley, "Luther andthe Fifth Lateran Council," esp. 68-77.

6 4For an excellent and thorough treatment of the controversy surrounding Pomponazzi's treatisesee, Pine, Pietro Ponmpoijazzi, 124-234.

Constant / Reinterpretationt of "Apostolici regilininis" (1513) :371

overshadowed by charges (often by the same individuals) that his proof for mortal-ity was illicit or even heretical.

The radical nature of Pomponazzi's treatise on the soul seems to have led manyof his detractors to interpret and apply the bullApostolici regiminiis in ways it was per-haps not originally intended. The public attacks at Mantua,Venice, and Bolognaprompted even Leo X, in 1518, to issue a warning to Pomponazzi that seems tostretch the original meaning of the bull.65 It should be pointed out, however, thatafter consulting with Cardinal Bembo and perhaps with others, Leo quicklyrevoked this warning and halted any potential proceedings before they couldbegin.66 It would seem that, at least in the eyes of the pope, Bembo's interventionsecured Pomponazzi's acquittal from charges of heresy. Not only did Pomponazzinot suffer any negative personal consequences; he was allowed to continue teachingunmolested at Bologna (the major university of the papal state), and with anincrease in salary to boot.67

The modifications to the traditional understanding ofApostolici regiminiis made

here would be significant if only for how they affect our understanding of the textof the bull. However, because many interpretations concerning the bull's milieuhave been influenced, at least in part, by the traditional understanding of the textof the bull (particularly with regard to its dogmatic content), the modifications tothat understanding here suggested hold the potential to alter our understanding ofApostolid regimuinis's historical circumstances as well. First, these modifications do-nothing to discredit the majority view that Apostolici regininiis is primarily directedagainst the secular Itahan Aristotelians as a group, and because he was that group'smost prominent member, Pietro Pomponazzi in particular.While the bull does notsingle out particular offenders, unspecified "careless" philosophers are charged withthe spread of errors, and the condemnations from the first passage of the doctrinalsection of the bull describe with precision the philosophical doctrines most associ-ated with the ItalianAverroist and othervsecularAristotelian philosophers. 68 More-

6 5 "Petrus de Mantua asseruit quod anirna rationalis secundum propria philosophuae et mentemAris-

totelis sit seu videatur mortalis, contra deteirtninationem concl Lateranensis: papa mandat, ut dictus

Petrus revocet, alias contra ipsum precedatur, 13junui 1518." Cited in Leopold von Ranke, T1e-History of

the Popes:7lzeir Clulrch and State in tile Sixteenthl and Seventeenth Cenlturies, trans.W. K Kelly (1845),27.6 Pine, Pietro Pottiponazzi, 126-27.67 Paul Oskar Kristeller, "The University of Bologna and the Renaissance,' Studies 2:135-46, at

142; also idem, "Two Unpublished Questions on the Soul of Pietro Pomponazzi ' Studies 3:364, and

idem, "The Myth of Renaissance Atheism and the French Tradition of Free Thought," Studies 3:541-

54, repr. from Jornzal of thle History of Philosophy 6'(1968): 233-44. Kristeller points 'out that De

i,n,nortalitate animi)ae was never formally condemned or placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. See

also, Grendler,"Intellectual Freedom in Italian Universities:' 36-38. I6 8 Monfasani, "Aristotelians, Platonists," 266. Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola, an observer

who was present at the council, also indicates that the bull was directed at these "Averroists" and

"Alexandrists" and he specifically charges such philosophers with maintaining the "double truth" that

was condemned by the bull. As cited by Charles B. Schmitt, "Gianfi-ancesco Pico della Mirandola and

the Fifth Lateran Council 'Arcl:ivjiirRformationisgesehiclte 61 (1970): 161-78, at 164-65,"nec desunt

nostra tempestate qui blaterent eorum opinionem secundum philosophiam veram esse, quasi Averrois et

Alexandri schola sit universa philosophia, et quasi verum possit esse adversum vero; quorum errorem

etiam nuper Leo decimus Pontifex Maxiinus in Laterano Concilio condemnavit...."

372 Sixteenth CenttiryJournial X7WII/2 (2002)

over, a specific concern with philosophers and philosophy runs throughout thewhole of the text. It is probably not a coincidence that several among the church-men who were influential or directly involved in the drafting of the decree-including Giles of Viterbo, Tommaso de Vio Cajetan, and Antonio Trombetta, aswell as theVenetian cardinal and protector of the Franciscans, Domenico Grimani,who was the head of the drafting commission-had been associated in some wayor another with the University of Padua during the Averroistic controversies of the1480s and 1490s, and it is quite likely that several knew Pomponazzi personally. 6 9

While the inclusion of aut poesis near the end of the disciplinary section may indi-cate that perhaps some sort of antihumanist sentiment had crept into the decree,the text of the bull does not seem to support Felix Gilbert's assertion thatApostoliciregiiuiiis was primarily directed towards humanists or that it was most directly trig-gered by the 1500 edition ofiLucretius.There is simply too much emphasis on phi-losophy and philosophers and much too little on poetry or literature to accept theconclusion that the bull was directed primarily at humanists or classical literature.

Although in some sense Apostolici regimiiis might seem to represent a repri-mand of a particular philosophical school by its philosophical opponents, thedecree ought not to be regarded as an arbitrary use of ecclesiastical authority solelytoward this end.The problem of the double truth was a legitimate and serious reli-gious concern. Moreover, there is evidence to show that accusations concerningthe double truth were indeed reasonable. For example, if the council fathers sus-pected Pietro Pomponazzi of holding the double truth, or of maintaining a posi-tion that bordered the double truth, there is evidence to suggest that such asuspicion would not have been unfounded.7 0 In his published works, which vari-ously attack immortality, the reality of miracles, and predestination, Pomponazzi isvery careful to give the standard disclaimer that his positions are merely uncertainconclusions of philosophy and that the teachings of religion on these matters rep-resent genuine truth.71 However, Martin Pine has argued that Pomponazzi's con-clusions defy his disclaimers and that his professions of belief are probably only adevice to protect him from persecution for his true beliefs.7 2 Pine advances theposition that Pomponazzi even went beyond the normal conceptions of the doubletruth, and in fact believed that only philosophy represented genuine truth.Accord-ing to Pine, Pomponazzi regarded the doctrines of religion as mere fables, com-pletely devoid of rational content and invented by religious lawmakers in order tolead to virtue those men who were unable to fully understand philosophy. Not

69 See Price,"Origins' esp. 472, and O'Malley, Giles of Viterbo, 7, as well as the discussion below.70 The evidence for Pomponazzi's views on the "double truth" all appears after the 1513 Latemn

Council. However, it seems reasonable to assume that those views are at least representative of his viewsprior to 1513. Pomponazzi himself states that he had already taught the same doctrines at Ferrara (1509-10) that he would teach during his tenure at Bologna (1511-25); for this see Pine, Pietro Pomponazzi,45.

7 1See for example the final chapter of Pomponazzi's treatise De immortalitate animae, trans.WilliamHenry Hay II, in The Renaissance Phiilosoplhy of Man, ed. Ernst Cassirer, Paul Oskar Kristeller, and JohnHerman RandallJr. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), 337-81.

7 2Pine, Pietro Ponponazzi.

Constant / Reinterpretationi of "Apostolid regiininis" (1513) 373

only is this position found in each of Pomponazzi's three major published works,

but, Pine argues, it is stated even more explicitly by Pomponazzi in one of his lec-

tures in which he gave,a commentary onAverroes's similar position concerning the

relationship of philosophy and religion.7 3

While Pine's' conclusions are interesting and insightful, there are also compel-

ling arguments for Pomponazzi's religious sincerity.7 4 Inevitably it probably

remains impossible to know 'Pomponazzi's actual religious sincerity, and scholarly

debate on this topic will: no doubt continue. However, if there is sufficient evi-

dence to persuade certain modern historians, who are professionally committed to

objectivity, that Porfiponazzi (or others) crossed the accepted boundaries of ortho-

doxy, it is certainly not surprising that certain churchmen of the time, many of

whom were likely already predisposed against Pomponazzi and others because of

their philosophical positions, might have suspected such philosophers of this heresy.

To address another matter, the bull's statute that theology or canon law supple-

ments the prolonged study of philosophy or poetry appears to reflect certain char-

acteristics of late medieval 'Italian academnic institutions. In the northern European

universities, theology faculties generally held a position superior to that of the phi-

losophers (who were members of the lower faculty of arts). However, Italian pro-

fessors of theology-generally Dominican and Franciscan friars who usually taught

in their convent houses of study in university towns-held a much weaker position

relative to the philosophers in their universities as compared to their northern

counterparts.Whereas the theology faculties of northern Europe had the power

and authority to create institutional conflict and to act as a check on the philoso-

phers at those universities, Italian theology professors usually had no such authority

to oversee the activities of the philosophers. Such an arrangement in the Italian

universities provided philosophy professors greater liberties, and this may help

explain the daring of some of these professors on certain delicate topics. This lack

of institutional conflict meant that any meaningful censure of illicit philosophy in

Italy generally had to come from sources outside the university. Thus, the circum-

stances of the Italian universities may also help explain, at least in part, why, as

opposed to the 1277 Paris condemnation, the 1513 condemnation of the double

truth was enacted through a universal church council and perhaps thereby also why

it took the form of a formal dogmatic declaration. 75

7 3 Pine, Pietro Pomponjazzi, 109-23.7 4 For example, see esp. Kristeller, "The Myth of Renaissance Atheism,' and idem, Eight

Plhilosophers of the Italiatn Rezaissance, 84-90. See also the discussion above./aThe relation of theology and philosophy in and the makeup of the Italian universities is a rather

complex matter, too complicated to be addressed here in any detail. See Pine, Pietro Pomponazzi, 41-

43, 1 10-11; Monfasani, "Aristotelians, Platonists,' 252-56; and Paul F. Grendler, 77lie Universities of tbe

Italian Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002). A telling indicator of the

difference between the Italian and northern European universities in this regard comes from the records

of censures on philosophy professors by theology faculties. Such censures are common documents from

the northern European universities; however, none from any Italian universities exist prior to the

Protestant Reformation. On such censures see Monfasani,"Aristotelians, Platonists, 252.

374 Sixteenith Century Joinal XXXIII/2 (2002)

Seeing Apostolici reginziniis as being a dogmatic declaration against the doubletruth may also help explain Leo X's selection of Tommaso deVio Cajetan to serveon the conurittee that drafted the decree.76 The selection of Cajetan, a prominentThomist philosopher and then general of the Dominican order, has been some-what of a mystery.77 The problem with Cajetan's appointment is that in 1509 hebad written a conmmentary on Saint Thomas's De animixa in which he broke withhis fellow Thomists and concluded that the individual immortality of the soul wasnot demonstrable according to the philosophy of Aristotle. Why would Leo Xappoint such a philosopher to the commission entrusted with drafting this decreeif the goal of the decree was to condemn the very error he had at least partiallysupported?

Rather than present a mystery, Cajetan's -appointment should instead beregarded as indicating the true nature of this decree.Although Cajetan's commen-tary on Saint Thomas's De aniuiia supported a philosophical position that clashedwith Leo's probable philosophical views, Cajetan expressed his conclusions in amanner which properly observed the approved separation of religion and philoso-phy. Cajetan clearly pointed out that this view was merely an uncertain conclusionof philosophy, and even so was only valid according to Aristotelian principles-thereby suggesting that philosophy, if not Aristotle, might still be able to demon-strate immortality. In his work he made it clear that he believed that the religiousdoctrine of immortality represented unquestionable truth and his conclusions donothing to contradict this. It is here suggested that Leo X appointed Cajetan to thedrafting comnission because he felt the Dominican philosopher would support hisdecree. This is precisely because Apostolici regimiiiis was not a condemnation of anyphilosophical conclusion per se, but was a condemnation of the double truth, andwas aimed to establish the appropriate way for a philosopher to teach philosophicaldoctrines that contradicted religious teaching. Cajetan represented the ideal modelofjust how a philosopher should teach such philosophical conclusions and in facthad done so in the case of the very doctrine on which improper teaching and theuse of the double truth had so troubled many of the council fathers.78 AlthoughCajetan expressed some reservations, Leo was right to select him, since he did for

7 6Mansi, Saacrnitm toncilionmt, vol.:32, col. 797.7 7 For example, Monfasani, "Aristotelians, Platonists," 269, suggests that the selection of Cajetan

to the drafting committee may represent fair-mindedness on the part of Leo X.78 Neither before nor after the bull was Cajetan's Catholic orthodoxy seriously questioned, even

by the most aggressive defenders of the philosophical demonstrability of the soul. In fact, Cajetan wasmade a cardinal by Leo X soon after the council in 1517; the church relied upon Cajetan to be one ofthe most important defenders of Catholic orthodoxy during the first half of the sixteenth century.Concerning the orthodoxy of Cajetan's commentary on Saint Thomas's De anima and its attackers, see,Pine, Pietro Pomponazzi, 109, 134, 184-86; also Etienne Gilson, "Autour de Pomponazzi, 'Archivesd'Histoire Doctrinale et Litteraire diu Moyen Age 28 (1961): 163-279, esp. 173-83. On his role in the churchfollowing the Lateran Council, especially with regard to Martin Luther, see for instance Jedin, Couctilof Trenti, esp. 1:170-75. For a good general treatment of Cajetan and his thought, see Jared Wicks,"Thomism between Renaissance and Reformation: The Case of Cajetan,'Arrhivflir Refonnationsgeschiichte 68 (1977): 9-31, and idem, Cajetan Responds:A Reader in Reformation Controversy (Washington,D.C.: Catholic University ofAmerica Press, 1978),1-46.

Constant / Reinterpretation of "Apostolici regininiis" (1513) 375

the most part support the majority of the decree. Only objecting to the section that

orders philosophers to publicly explain Christian doctrine, which he probably felt

imposed too burdensome or distracting a duty upon 'professional philosophers,

Cajetan seems to have accepted the rest of the bull, including the condemnation of

those who held the mortality and unicity of the soul as truths'of philosophy as well

as the dogmatic condemnation of the double truth.79

The final difficulty concerning the decree is how to understand its denuncia-

tion of poetry. Poetry is not specifically mentioned 'until the final passage of the'dis-

ciplinary section, and yet Felix Gilbert argued that this sanction reflects the decree's

antihumanist character. 80 He proposes that the bull was instigated and perhaps even

authored byVincenzo Quirini and Tommaso Giustiniani and their circle. Gilbert

admnits that such 'a measure against humanism might seem strange coming from the

court of Leo, a pope renowned as one of the great Renaissance patrons of human-

ism.8 1 However, Gilbert argues that the influence of Quirini and Giustiniani at the

papal court may have been strong enough to compel the new and relatively young

pope to allow the decree.8 2 Still, the text of the decree is clearly targeted primarily

at philosophers:Averroist errors are described with precision,8 3 and a concern with

philosophy, in particular with the double truth, runs throughout the bull. Except

for the inclusion of anttpoesis near the end,Apostolidcreginiinis is nowhere concerned

with literature at all. Neither Quirini nor Giustiniani, bothVenetians who had

recendy entered the Camaldolese order,8 4 sat on the commission that drafted the

decree; and while they did in 1513 present to the pope their famous Libelluts ad

Leonenii recommending reforms, nowhere in that comprehensive and long work

did they ever mention concern for heterodox teachings on the soul.8 5

The sanction on poetry, however, is a part of the text and thus the problem

remains as to why it is present. Poetry is mentioned only twice in the text of the

bull and when it is mentioned it reads almost as if an afterthought (anit poesis and et

poesis). Perhaps the decree can be read as though poetry was not an original or pri-

mary concern of the drafters; perhaps sanctions on poetry were inserted at some

time during the drafting process.Without making them the authors or even signif-

icant instigators of the bull, it seems reasonable to suggest thatVincenzo Quirini

and Tomnmaso Giustiniani (and their circle) could very well have used their influ-

ence with the pope, as described by Gilbert, to effect such an addition to the

7 9App., 379; no. 19. Cajetan objects only to the "second part:' or disciplinary secdon of the bull,

and more specifically to the mandate that required philosophers to teach religion when publicly

teaching philosophy. Cajetan is one of two recorded prelates to have objected to any pordon of the bull;

Nicolo, the bishop of Bergamo, was the other.8 0Gilbert, Crisdanesimo -976-79.80on humanism and the papal court of the period, including the pontificate of Leo X, see John

ED'Amnico, Retaissance Hmananisti in Papal Ronte: I:bnnanists and Claircdiieni on tile Eve of the Reformatiot(Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983).

8 2 Gilbert "Cristianesimo' 986-90.8 3Monfasani,"Aristotelians, Platonists,' 266 n. 105,similarly criticizes Gilbert's view.8 4Jedin,Trent, 1:128; see also Nelson Minnich,"tidpiat lididii,n a Domo Do,ini:The Fifth Lateran

Council and the Reform of Rome" in Refonm andAilihority, ed. Lytle, 127-42.85 Monfasani,"Aristotelians, Platonists:" 266 n. 105.

376 Sixteentih CenituiryJo uiral XCKIII/2 (2002)

decree.86 ConcerningLeo's support of humanism, it should be pointed out that thebull's sanction on poetry is not an attack on humanism per se. Rather, it prohibits(at least for those in sacred orders) any program of study, including but not limitedto a humanist curriculum, that does not also include the study of divine things.Certainly such an addition (indeed if that is what it is) would have been acceptableto Leo X and indeed to most other humanists of the day.

WithApostolici regiminiis we have a bull which seems to have been greatly influ-enced by a common hostility to certain secular Italian Aristotelian professors andtheir doctrines that either contradicted or expressed doubt about the philosophicaldemonstrability of the individual immortality of the soul. Primarily influenced byFlorentine Platonism, this movement gained important institutional force with theascension to the papacy by Leo X.Although Leo X and those who shared his viewsmay have been philosophically opposed to the secular Aristotelians' teachings onthe soul, it was understood that those teachings in themselves did not constituteheresy. However, Leo X and his circle feared that the Italian university structure,with its secular curriculum and politically weak theological faculties, had allowedcertain secularAristotelian philosophers to teach these philosophical doctrines in away that overstepped the accepted bounds separating religion and philosophy.Some of these philosophers, perhaps including Pietro Pomponazzi, were seen asemploying or as coming dangerously close to employing the double truth. Notonly is the double truth heretical in itself as a device for philosophers, but perhapsmore importantly, because of the popular public philosophical disputations, it alsorepresented a threat to the larger body of the Christian faithful.

Apostolici regilniinis, although in part a product of philosophical hostilities, is notitself a philosophical bull. Nonetheless, the philosophical hostilities towards the sec-ular Italian Aristotelians played an important role in its creation. These hostilitieshelped sensitize clerical opinion to philosophical doubts about immortality and mayhave predisposed the clergy to see certain philosophers as advocating the "doubletruth." Hostilities towards the secular Aristotelians also helped to mobilize animpressive collection of intellectuals and scholars from a variety of schools ofthought behind a common cause. Thus a pope with Platonist leanings was able tocall on a number of prominent churchmen from a variety of scholarly backgroundswho were receptive to his philosophical views on the soul to sit at the drafting com-mission or otherwise support this decree. However, because the bull was aimed atthe double truth and not at any particular philosophical school or doctrine per se,Leo X was also able to call on a number of other prelates-most notably Cajetan-who, although they might not have shared his particular philosophical views on thesoul, nonetheless could also support this dogmatic decree against the double truth.

86 Another possibility that bears investigation is that Quirini and Giustiniani, perhaps by virtue oftheir student days at Padua or through their mutual friendship with Gasparo Contarini (who held PietroBarozzi in high esteem and in 1517 would write a treatise on immortality against his former masterPomponazzi), were among those who effected or supported the bull based on a common hostility toPomponazzi and other Paduan Aristotelians. On the friendship of Quirini, Giustiniani, and Contarinisee Ross,"Gasparo Contarini and His Friends:'

Constant / Reinterpretationi of "Apostolici regimninis" (1513) 377

AppendixThe Bull Apostolici regiminis of the Eighth Session

of the Fifth Lateran Council, 19 December 1513

The official acts of the Fifth Lateran Council were first edited and published in Rome in

1521, by Cardinal Antonio del Monte, acting on the orders of Pope Leo X.The tide'of this

edition is Samim Lateranenise concdiiuul novissimnumil su1b lulio II et Leone X celebratumn.This 1521

edition was used in various collections, the editions currently most readily available being

J. D. Mansi, Sacroninm concilionmmn tiova et aniplissinma collectio (Paris, 1773), vol. 32: cols. 649-

1002, and Norman P. Tanner, SJ., ed., Decees of thte Ecumenical Couitils (Washington, D.C.,

1990), 1:595-655.8 7These are the two editions followed here for the Latin text of the decree

Apostolid regiminis.TheTanner edition, at 1:605-6, was used for the main body of the decree;

the Mansi edition, vol. 32, cols. 842-43, was used for several passages following the main

text of the bull, which were not included in the Tanner edition.

Following the practice of the Tanner edition, the subtide of the decree, here in boldface

and within brackets, is from the 1521 edition's summary of decrees, but is not a part of the

bull proper. Intertextual references citing biblical passages or previous counciliar decrees, in

brackets, also are taken from Tanner. The numbering throughout the text, in brackets and

boldface, is added by the author of this essay.

SE-SSIOVIII

19 DEC, I513

[Damnatur omris assertio contraria veritati christianae fidei illuminatae]

[1] Leo episcopus servus servorum Dei, ad perpetuam rei memoriam, sacro approbante

concilio. [2] Apostolici regiminis sollicitudo nos assidue pulsat, ut medendis animarum lan-

guoribus, quarum nos ex alto omnipotens Auctor curam habere voluit, iis potissimum qui

instantius fideles nunc urgere cernuntur, salutifero olei et vini medicamine ad instar samari-

tani in evangelio [see Luke 10:34] solicitam operam impendamus, ne nobis illud Iererniae

obiiciatur: Nnaiquid resinta noni est in Galaad, att mnedicas n1on1 est ibi ger. 8:22].

[3] Cum itaque diebus nostris (quod dolenter ferimus) zizaniae seminator, antiquus

humani generis hostis [see Luke 13:25, 28], nonnullos perniciosissimos errores a fidelibus

semper explosos in agro Domini super seminare et augere sit ausus, de natura praesertim

animae rationalis, quod videlicet mmortalis sit, aut unica in cunctis hominibus; et nonnulli

temere philosophantes, secundum saltem philosophiam verum id esse asseverant; contra

huiusmodi pestem opportuna remedia adhibere cupientes, hoc sacro approbante concilio

damnamus et reprobamus omnes asserentes animam intellectivam mortalem esse, aut unicam

in cunctis honinibus et haec in dubium vertentes:

[4] cum illa non solum vere per se et essentialiter humani corporis forma existat, sicut in

canone felicis recordationis Clementis papaeV praedecessoris nostri in generaliViennensi

concilio edito continetur [Council of Vienne, see Tanner, Decrees, 1:360-61], verum et

immortalis, et pro corporum quibus infunditur multitudine singulariter multiplicabilis, et

87On the various editions of the decrees of the council, see especially Minnich "Paride de Grassi'sDiary,' 370-71, andTanner, Decrees, 593-94.

378 Sixteenth Centutryjournal XXXIII/2 (2002)

multiplicata, et multiplicanda sit. [5] Quod manifeste constat ex evangelio, cum Dominusait:Anihnain auterni occidere non possunt [Matt. 10:28]. [6] Et alibi: Qui odit anitna,n snamnj in hoct,mundo, in vitamn aeternatn custodit earn[ gohn 12:25]. [7] Et cum aeterna praemis, et aeternasupplicia pro merito vitae iudicandis repromittit [see Matt. 25:46]: alias incarnatio, et aliaChristi mysteria nobis minime profuissent, nec resurrectio e4ectanda foret, ac sancti et iustimniserabiliores essent (iuxtaApostolum) cumctis hlominiibus [1 Cor. 15:19].

[8] Cumque verum vero minime contradicat, omnem assertionem veritad illuminataefidei contrariam, omnino falsam esse definimus, et ut aliter dogmatisare non liceat, districtiusinhibemus: [9] omnesque hiusmodi erroris assertionibus inhaerentes, veluti damnatissimashaereses seminantes, per omnia, ut detestabiles et abhominabiles haereticos et infideles,catholicam fidem labefactantes, vitandos et puniendos fore decernimus.

[10] Insuper omnibus et singulis philosophis in universitatibus studiorum generalium, etalibi publice legentibus, districte praecipiendo mandamus, ut cum philosophorum principiaaut conclusiones, in quibus a recta fide deviare noscuntur, auditoribus suis legerint, seuexplanaverint, quale hoc de animae mortalitate aut initate, et mundi aeternitate, ac alia hius-modi, teneantur eisdem veritatem religionis christianae omni conatu manifestam facere, etpersuadendo pro posse docere, ac omni studio huiusmodi philosophorum argumenta, cumomnia solubilia existant, pro viribus excludere atque resovere.

[11] Et cum non sufficiat aliquando tribulorum radices praescindere, nisi et, ne iterumpullulent, funditus evellere, ac eorum semina originalesque causas, unde facile oriuntur,removere, cum praecipue humanae philosophiae studia diuturniora, quam Deus, secundumverbum Apostoli, evacuavit et stultam fecit [see 1 Cor. 1:19-20], absque divinae sapientiaecondimento, et quae sine revelatae veritatis lumine in errorem quandoque magis inducunt,quam in veritatis elucidationem: ad tollendam omnem in praemissis errandi occasionem, hacsalutari constitutione ordinamus et statuimus, ne quisquam de cetero in sacris ordinibusconstitutus, saecularis vel regularis, aut alias ad illos a iure arctatus, in studiis generalibus, velalibi publicae audiendo, philosophiae aut poesis studiis ultra quinquennium post grammati-cam et dialecticam, sine aliquo studio theologiae aut iuris pontificii, incumbat. [12] Verumdicto exacto quinquennio, si ex illis studiis insudare voluerit, liberum sit ei, dum tamensimul aut seorsum, aut theologiae, aut sacris canonibus operam navaverit, ut in his sanctis etutilibus professionibus sacerdotes Domnini inveniant, unde infectas philosophiae et poesisradices purgare et sanare valeant.

[13] Et hos canones per ordinarios locurum, ubi generalia studia vigent, et rectores uni-versitatis eorumdem sutiorum singulis annis in principio studii, in virtute sanctae obedien-tiae publicari mandamus.

[14]88 Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam nostrae damnationis, reproba-tionis, definitionis, inhibitionis, decreti, ordinationis, statuti et mandati infringere, vel eiausu temerario contaire. [15] Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationemomnipotentis Dei et beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum eius se noverit incursurum.

[16] Datum Romae in publica sessione, in Laterensi sacrosancta basilica solemniter cele-brata anno incarnationis dominicae 1513. XIV Kalendas Januarii, pontificatus nostri annoprimo.

[17] Qua perlecta, petiit, an placerent paternitatibus suis contenta in schedula. [18] Etomnes responderunt simpliciter placere, excepto reverendo patre domino Nicolao episcopoBergomensi, qui dixit, quod non placebat sibi, quod theologi imponerent philosophis dis-

88 Here begins the text included in Sacronini conciliomtnt nova, but not included in Tanner, Deacees.

Constant / Reiniterpretation of 'Apostolici regiuiniis" (1513) 379

putantibus de veritate intellectus, tamquam de materia posita de menteAristotelis, quam sibiimponit Averrois, licet secundum veritatem talis opinio est falsa. [19] Et reverendus paterdominusThomas generalis ordinis Praedicatorum dixit, quod non placet secunda pars bullae,praecipiens philosophis, ut publice persuadendo doceant veritatem fidei.

[20] Deinde reverendus pater dorminusJoannesVincentiuis archiepiscopus Senensisascendit ambonem, et legit quamdam' schedulam super pace tenoris infra scripti.

The Sixteenth Century Journal must pay a fee for each piece of mail that is returnedto us. Please help us control costs and subscription rates by notifying us ofchanges in your address.You can do this in several ways:

l.Send us an email with your new address: <escj@truman.edu> or<brammall@truman.edu

2.USA residents can use the United States Postal Service electronicchange-of-address feature at <http://www.usps.gov/moversnet/plain/coa.html>.After completing the form, one can use the entered information to print AddressChange Notification Letters and mail them to family, friends, and business associ-ates.

3.Photocopy and use the form below and mail it to: Sixteenth Century Journal,Truman State University, 100 E. Normal St., Kirksville, MO 635014221, USA.

NAME ; I

OLD ADDRESS:

NEW ADDRESS:

NEW EMAIL ADDRESS

EFFECTIVE DATE:

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: A reinterpretation of the Fifth Lateran Council decreeApostolici regiminis (1513)

SOURCE: The Sixteenth Century Journal 33 no2 Summ 2002WN: 0219600678098

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www2.truman.edu/escj/.

Copyright 1982-2002 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.