Astrological Determinism and the 1270 Paris Condemnation in John Pecham’s Quaestiones disputatae de stellis

Abstract

This article undertakes the first comprehensive analysis of John Pecham’s Quaestiones disputatae de stellis, composed in early January 1271, situating the text within the intellectual and institutional context shaped by the Paris condemnation of 1270. Concentrating on Questions 1 to 4, the study elucidates Pecham’s tripartite division of events into natural, voluntary, and extraordinary, a conceptual scheme that informs both his refutation of astrological determinism and his broader critique of astrology as science. This distinction provides the foundation for Pecham’s account of astral causation and his redefinition of celestial bodies as mere signs (natural, accidental, or mirabilia), rather than genuine efficient causes. His defence of human freedom, in turn, leads him to formulate an interconnected treatment of bodily disposition, predestination, fate, grace, and providence, engaging directly with the central theological debates of the early 1270s. By examining the Quaestiones in the context of Pecham’s wider works, including his Quodlibeta, the Quaestiones disputatae de anima, and the Tractatus de anima, this article offers the first sustained scholarly analysis of the Quaestiones disputatae de stellis, considering that they may constitute a deliberate intervention into contemporary discussions on astrological determinism in the immediate aftermath of Tempier’s 1270 condemnation.