Quelques problèmes théologiques discutés par Gilles d'Orléans et la censure de 1277

AbstractGiles of Orleans' philosophy evolved from an orthodox Christian interpretation of Aristotle to an Averroism; and his successive commentaries testify to this evolution: De generatione version I, De generatione version II, Physics version I and Physics version II. The first work presents orthodox Christian solutions, the second and the third testify to some Averroistic influences and the last is a clearly Averroistic commentary. Giles did not obey the regulation of 1272 which forbade the masters of the facilitas artium to discuss theological problems. De generatione I discusses the question of world history as a chain of eternal reversions and solves it according to Christian orthodoxy. De generatione II and Physics I put forward the question whether accidents can exist without substance. The first work cites amply the Aristotelian solution and tries to reconcile it with a Christian understanding of the problem, whereas the second commentary accepts the opinion of Thomas Aquinas. In De generatione II and Physics II, Giles inquires whether an annihilated substance can reappear. The first commentary cites <Aristotelian> arguments for the negative answer, but it also gives a short declaratio fidei. The second commentary cites an <Aristotelian> and an orthodox solution, stating that one can solve the problem on two different planes - Christian or philosophical, both offering a different solution and unable to be reconciled. All three questions are listed in Tempier's Condemnation of 1277 - propositions 92, 196 and 215 - censuring heterodox answers.