word, as they emanated from his lips, and to adopt them with
great eagerness. Moreover, on a certain day when the concourse
from all parts to hear him was great, when the lecture was over
and was followed by a murmur of favorable applause from all the
throng, a certain distinguished Doctor who both had lectured on
the Arts at Paris and long studied on the laws at Bologna, whose
name was Master Roger the Norman, ... broke out openly in
expressions of this sort: "There is not such knowledge under the
sun, and if it were by chance reported at Paris, it would, beyond
a doubt, carry incomparable weight there, far more so than
anywhere else." Now the opening--as it were, the proem--of that
talk I have not considered it inappropriate to introduce here; so
this is the way it began:
"I had proposed to hear before being heard, to learn before
speaking, to hesitate before debating. For to cultured ears and
to men of the highest eloquence my speech will appear to have
little marrow in its views, and its poverty of words will seem
jejune. For idle is it, and utterly superfluous, to offer that
which is arid to the eloquent, and that which is stale to men of
knowledge and wisdom. Whence our Moral Seneca, and, quoting from
him, Sidonius, says:
"'Until Nature has drunk in knowledge, it is not greater glory to
speak what you know than to be silent about what you do not
know.'
"And yet, since, on the testimony of Augustine, 'Every part out
of harmony with its whole is base,' that I may not seem the sole
anomaly among you, or, where others speak, be found by my silence
a disciple of Pythagoras surpassing the rest, I have chosen to be
found ridiculous for my speaking, rather than out of harmony for
my silence.
"What note then shall the noisy goose emit in the presence of the
clear-songed swans? Shall he offer new things, or things well
known? Things often considered and trite generate disgust; new
things lack authority. For, as Pliny says: 'It is an arduous task
to give novelty to old things, authority to new things,
brightness to things obsolete, charm to things disdained, light
to obscure things, credence to doubtful things, and to all things
naturalness!'
"The question which we have before us is old, but not
inveterate,--a question often argued, but whose decision is still
pending: Should a Judge decide according to the evidence, or
according to his conviction?"
Now he supported the second, but far less justifiable view, by
arguments taken from the Laws and the Canons, so forcible that,
while all were amazed, all were uncertain whether greater praise
should be given to the ornateness of the words or to the efficacy
of the arguments.[57]
The mode of lecturing on Roman Law at Bologna is thus described by
Odofredus (_c._ 1200-1265), a distinguished teacher:
First, I shall give you summaries of each title [i.e., each
chapter into which the books are divided] before I proceed to the
text; second, I shall give you as clear and explicit a statement
as I can of the purport of each Law (included in the title);
thirdly, I shall read the text with a view to correcting it;
fourthly, I shall briefly repeat the contents of the Law;
fifthly, I shall solve apparent contradictions, adding any
general principles of Law (to be extracted from the passage),
commonly called "Brocardica," and any distinctions or subtle and
useful problems (_quaestiones_) arising out of the Law, with
their solutions, as far as the Divine Providence shall enable me.
And if any Law shall seem deserving, by reason of its celebrity
or difficulty, of a Repetition, I shall reserve it for an evening
Repetition.[58]
The varied statement and restatement of the passage, implied in the
foregoing description, was doubtless necessary to make it intelligible
to the not-too-keen minds of the auditors. As Rashdall points out, it
"makes no mention of a very important feature of all mediaeval
lectures,--the reading of the 'glosses.'" This is mentioned in the
Bologna statutes now to be cited.
There are numerous statutes on the mode of lecturing. At Bologna, and
doubtless elsewhere, professors seem to have experienced the difficulty,
not unknown to modern teachers, of getting through the entire course
within the prescribed time. The students, who regulated the conduct of
their teachers, made stringent rules to prevent this, and punished
violations of them by fines large enough to make professors take due
caution:
We have decreed also that all Doctors actually lecturing must
read the glosses immediately after reading the chapter or the
law, unless the continuity of the chapters or of the laws
requires otherwise, taking the burden in this matter on their own
consciences in accordance with the oath they have taken. Nor,
with regard to those things that are not to be read, must they
yield to the clamor of the scholars. Furthermore we decree that
Doctors, lecturing ordinarily or extraordinarily, must come to
the sections assigned _de novo_, according to the regulations
below. And we decree, as to the close observance by them of the
passages, that any Doctor, in his ordinary lecturing in Canon or
Civil Law, must deposit, fifteen days before the Feast of Saint
Michael, twenty-five Bologna pounds with one of the treasurers
whom the rectors have appointed; which treasurer shall promise to
give said money to the rectors, or the general beadle in their
name, all at once or in separate amounts, as he shall be required
by them or by him.
The form, moreover, to be observed by the Doctors as to the
sections is this: Let the division of the book into sections
(_puncta_) be determined, and then let him be notified. [And if
any Doctor fails to reach any section on the specified date he
shall be fined three Bologna pounds, while for a second offense
he shall be fined five pounds, and for a third and each
succeeding violation of the rule, ten pounds.] And if the
twenty-five pounds are exhausted, he must deposit in said place a
second twenty-five pounds; and the second deposit must be made
within eight days from the time when the first was exhausted....
We decree also that no Doctor shall hereafter exceed one section
in one lecture. And if the contrary be done by any one he shall
be charged with perjury and punished to the extent of three
pounds, to be taken from the money deposited for the purpose; and
as often as the violation occurs, so often shall the penalty be
inflicted, so long as the statute is in force; and the Rector
also must exact it.
We add that at the end of a section the Doctors must announce to
the scholars at what section they are to begin afterwards, and
they shall be obliged to follow that section which they have
begun, even to the end of the section. But if by chance, after
due weight is given to the glosses or text, it seems useful to
transfer a part of the lecture to another section, he shall be
obliged in his preceding lecture to announce that to the
scholars, so that those who wish may make provision beforehand;
under penalty of five Bologna shillings for each occasion for the
Doctor who does to the contrary.
We order this statute to be published in each school at the
beginning of the term....
Since topics not read by the Doctors are completely neglected
and consequently are not known to the scholars, we have decreed
that no Doctor shall omit from his sections any chapter,
decretal, law, or paragraph. If he does this he shall be obliged
to read it within the following section. We have also decreed
that no decretal or decree or law or difficult paragraph shall be
reserved to be read at the end of the lecture if, through such
reservation, promptness of exit at the sound of the appointed
bell is likely to be prevented.[59]
A lecture might be either dictated or delivered rapidly, "to the minds
rather than to the pens," of the auditors. For pedagogic and possibly
other reasons, the latter method seems to have been preferred by the
authorities; but lecturers, and students who desire to get full notes,
seem to have insisted upon dictation. A statute of the Masters of Arts
at Paris, 1355, is one of several unsuccessful attempts to enforce rapid
delivery:
Two methods of reading the books of the Liberal Arts have been
tried: By the first, the Masters of Philosophy from their chairs
rapidly set forth their own words, so that the mind of the
listener can take them in, but his hand is not able to write them
down; by the second, they pronounce them slowly so that the
listeners are able to write them down in their presence with the
pen. By diligent examination and mutual comparison of these ways
the first method is found to be the better, because the
conceptual power of the ordinary mind warns us to imitate it in
our lectures. Therefore, we, one and all, Masters of Arts, both
lecturing and not lecturing, being especially convoked for this
purpose ... have made a statute to this effect: All lecturers,
Masters as well as Scholars, of the same Faculty, whenever and
wherever they happen to be reading any book in regular order or
course in the same Faculty, or to be discussing a question
according to this or any other method of exposition, shall follow
the former method of reading to the best of their ability, to
wit: presenting it as though no one were writing it in their
presence. It is in accordance with this method that discourses
and recommendations are made in the University, and it is
followed by Lecturers in the rest of the Faculties.
Transgressors of this Statute, whether Masters or Scholars, we
deprive thenceforth of their positions as lecturers, of honors,
offices, and the rest of their means of support under our
Faculty, for one year. But if any one repeats the offense, we
double the penalty for the first repetition; for the second, we
quadruple it, and so on. And auditors who interfere with the
execution of this our Statute by shouting or whistling or raising
a din, or by throwing stones, either personally or through their
attendants or accomplices, or in any other way, we deprive of and
cut off from our company for one year, and for each repetition we
increase the penalty to twice and four times the length as
above.[60]
(b) _The Disputation._
The disputation, or debate, one of the most important university
exercises, "first became really established in the schools as a result
of the new method." (Cf. page 35.) This exercise was sometimes carried
on in the manner of a modern debate; to "respond" in the schools (i.e.,
to defend a thesis in public debate), and to "oppose" (i.e., to argue
against the respondent), was a common requirement for all degrees.
Scholars and masters frequently posted in public places theses to the
argument of which they challenged all comers, just as a knight might
challenge all comers at a tournament to combat. In such cases the
respondent usually indicated the side of the question which he would
defend. This practice, in a modified form, still exists in some European
universities in the public examinations for the Doctor's degree.
In another mode, the disputation was carried on by a single person, who
argued both sides of the question and drew the conclusion in favor of
one side or the other. This was of course merely the oral use of the
method of exposition commonly found in the works of scholastic
philosophers and theologians. The lecture of Giraldus Cambrensis
described above (page 109) was doubtless of this type. A complete
example is to be found in Dante's "Quaestio de Aqua et Terra." The brief
of the arguments on both sides of this question is here reproduced with
some modifications. It illustrates not only the exercise itself, but
also the ponderous complications which the scholastic method received at
the hands of Abelard's successors, and the weakness of that method when
applied to questions of natural science. The reader will note that the
argument no longer proceeds by the simple citation of authorities pro
and con; the reasonings of the debater are also introduced. Moreover,
the argument is more complex. It involves first the statement of the
affirmative position; second, the refutation of the affirmative by
observation and by reasoning; third, objections to the refutation by
reasoning; fourth, refutation of these objections; fifth, final
refutation of the original arguments.
_Introduction_: Author's reasons for undertaking the discussion.
Let it be known to you all that, whilst I was in Mantua, a
certain Question arose, which, often argued according to
appearance rather than to truth remained undetermined.
Wherefore, since from boyhood I have ever been nurtured in love
of truth, I could not bear to leave the Question I have spoken of
undiscussed: rather I wished to demonstrate the truth concerning
it, and likewise, hating untruth as well as loving truth, to
refute contrary arguments. And lest the spleen of many, who, when
the objects of their envy are absent, are wont to fabricate lies,
should behind my back transform well-spoken words, I further
wished in these pages, traced by my own fingers, to set down the
conclusion I had reached and to sketch out, with my pen, the form
of the whole controversy.
THE QUESTION: IS WATER, OR THE SURFACE OF THE SEA, ANYWHERE
HIGHER THAN THE EARTH, OR HABITABLE DRY LAND?
AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT: Five affirmative arguments generally
accepted.
_Reason 1._ Geometrical Proof: Earth and Water are spheres with
different centers; the center of the Earth's sphere is the center
of the universe; consequently the surface of the Water is above
that of the Earth.
_Reason 2._ Ethical Proof: Water is a nobler element than Earth;
hence it deserves a nobler, or higher, place in the scheme of the
universe.
_Reason 3._ Experimental Proof: based on sailors seeing the land
disappear under their horizon when at sea.
_Reason 4._ Economical Proof: The supply of Water, namely, the
sea, must be higher than the Earth; otherwise, as Water flows
downwards, it could not reach, as it does, the fountains, lakes,
etc.
_Reason 5._ Astronomical Proof: Since Water follows the moon's
course, its sphere must be excentric, like the moon's excentric
orbit; and consequently in places be higher than the sphere of
Earth.
NEGATIVE ARGUMENT: These reasons unfounded.
I. REFUTATION BY OBSERVATION.
Water flows down to the sea from the land; hence the sea cannot be
higher than the land.
II. REFUTATION BY REASONING:
A. _Water cannot be higher than the dry land._
_Proof_: Water could only be higher than the Earth,
1. If it were excentric, or
2. If it were concentric, but had some excrescence.
But since
_x_. Water naturally moves downwards,
and
_y_. Water is naturally a fluid body:
1. Cannot be true, for three impossibilities would follow:
_a_. Water would move upwards as well as downwards;
_b_. Water and Earth would move downwards in different
directions;
_c_. Gravity would be taught ambiguously of the two bodies.
Proof of these impossibilities by a diagram.
2. Cannot be true, for
_a_. The Water of the excrescence would be diffused, and
consequently the excrescence could not exist:
_b_. It is unnecessary, and what is unnecessary is contrary
to the will of God and Nature.
B. _All land is higher than the sea._
_Proof_: It has been shown that Water is of one level, and
concentric with the Earth:
Therefore, since the shores are higher than the edges of the sea,
and since the shores are the lowest portions of the land,
It follows that all the land is higher than the sea.
C. _Objections to the foregoing reasoning, and their refutation._
1. _Possible affirmative argument_: Earth is the heaviest body;
hence it is drawn down to its own center, and lies beneath the
lighter body, Water.
2. _Objection to this argument_: Earth is the heaviest body only
by comparison with others; for Earth is itself of different
weights.
3. _Refutation of this objection_: On the contrary, Earth is a
simple body, and as such subject to be drawn equally in every part.
4. _Answer to the refutation, with minor objections and their
refutation._
Since the objection is in itself sound, and
Earth by its own Particular Nature, due to the
stubbornness of matter, would be lower than the
sea; and since Universal Nature requires that
the Earth project somewhere, in order that its
object, the mixture of the elements, may be
fulfilled:
It follows that there must be some final and efficient
cause, whereby this projection may be accomplished.
_a_. The final cause has been seen to be the purpose
of Universal Nature.
_b_. The efficient cause cannot be (i) the Earth,
(ii) the Water, (iii) the Air or Fire, (iv) the
heaven of the Moon, (v) the Planets, nor (vi)
the Primum Mobile:
Therefore it must be ascribed to the heaven of
the Fixed Stars (for this has variety hi efficiency,
as is seen in the various constellations),
and in particular to those Stars of the Northern
Hemisphere which overhang the dry land.
(_x_) _First objection_: Why is the projecting
continent then, not circular, since the
motion of these stars is circular?
_Answer_: Because the material did not
suffice for so great an elevation.
(_y_) _Second objection_: Why is this elevation
in this particular place?
_Answer_: Because God whose ways are
inscrutable, willed it so.
We should therefore desist from examining
too closely the reasons, which we
can never hope to fathom.
D. _Refutation of the original arguments_:
_Reason 1._ Invalid because Earth and Water are spheres
with the same center.
_Reason 2._ Invalid because of the external influence of
Universal Nature, counteracting the internal influence
of Particular Nature.
_Reason 3._ Invalid because it is sphericity of the sea and
not the lowness of the land which interferes with one's
view at sea.
_Reason 4._ Invalid because Water does not flow to the
tops of mountains, but ascends thither in the form of
vapors.
_Reason 5._ Invalid because Water imitating the moon in
one respect, need not imitate it in all.[61]
This brief obviously illustrates much more than the form of the
mediaeval Disputation. It leaves one in no doubt as to the difference
between the natural science of the Middle Ages and that of our own time.
It also illustrates the weakness of the scholastic method when applied
to questions which modern science would settle by experiment. The
argument abounds in misstatements of fact, the conclusion is incorrect,
and the "reasoning" by which it is reached can be described, from the
modern point of view, only as grotesque. The weakness of the method was
recognized by Roger Bacon so early as the thirteenth century. The
growing recognition of its futility finds repeated expression in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, notably in the New Method (Novum
Organum) of Francis Bacon.
Like the scholastic method and the worship of Aristotle, the Disputation
fell into disrepute because of the extravagant lengths to which it was
carried. The following sarcastic criticism by the Spanish scholar, Juan
Luis Vives (1462-1540), is one illustration of the growing revolt of his
times against it:
Disputations, also, to no slight degree have blinded judgment.
They were instituted originally (but only among young men) to
stimulate mental vigor, often torpid, and to make young men
keener in their studies, so that they might either conquer or not
be conquered, and also that the instruction received from their
teachers might be more deeply impressed upon them.
Among men, or older persons, there was a kind of comparison of
opinions and reasons, not aimed at victory but at unravelling the
truth. The very name testifies that they are called disputations
because by their means the truth is, as it were, pruned or purged
[dis = apart; puto = to prune, or to cleanse]. But after praise
and reward came from listeners to the one who seemed to have the
best ideas, and out of the praise often came wealth and
resources, a base greed of distinction or money took possession
of the minds of the disputants, and, just as in a battle, victory
only was the consideration, and not the elucidation of truth. So
that they defended strenuously whatever they once had said, and
overthrew and trampled upon their adversary.
Low and sordid minds such as with drooping heads look solely at
such trivial and ephemeral results, regarded as of small
consequence the great benefit that results from study:--namely
probity or knowledge of truth; and these two things they did not
regard with sufficient acuteness nor did they comprehend their
great value, but they sought the immediate reward of money or
popular favor.
And so, in order to get a greater return for their labor, they
admitted the populace to their contests like the spectators of a
play brought out at the theatre. Then, as one might expect when
the standard is lowered, the philosopher laid aside his
dignified, venerable character, and put on his stage dress that
he might dance more easily: the populace was made spectator,
umpire, and judge, and the philosopher did that which the flute
player does not do on the stage,--he suited his music, not to his
own ideas and to the Muses, as his old teacher advises, but
wholly to the circle of onlookers and the crowd whence
distinction and gain was likely to come back to the actors.
There was no need of real, solid teaching (at least, not in the
opinion of those who are going to learn); but pretence and dust
were thrown in the eyes of the crowd. So the one plain road of
obtaining the truth was abandoned; six hundred ways of pretending
were made, by which each strove for what suited himself,
especially since there is nothing made so ugly as to lack a
sponsor.
Not only did the populace flock to this opinion--that the object
of learning is to dispute, just as it is the object of military
life to fight--but the public unanimity swept away the veterans,
the _triarii_ [the more experienced soldiers who were placed in
the third line] as it were, of the scholastic campaign (but these
have no more ability and judgment than the dregs of the people),
so that they regard him as superfluous and foolish who would call
them back to mental activity and character and that quiet method
of investigation, philosophy. [They think that] there is no other
fruit of studies save to keep your wits about you and not give
way to your adversary, either to attack him boldly or to bear up
against him, and shrewdly to contrive by what vigor, by what
skill, by what method of supplanting, he may be overturned.
Therefore under this beautiful scheme, surpassing all others, it
was the plan to break in the boy immediately and train him
constantly; they began disputing as soon as they were born and
ceased only at death. The boy brought to school, is bidden to
dispute forthwith on the first day and is already taught to
quarrel, before he can yet speak at all. So also in Grammar, in
the Poets, in the Historians, in Logic, in Rhetoric, in
absolutely every branch. Would any one wonder what they can find
to do in matters that are perfectly open, very simple and
elementary? There is nothing so transparent, so limpid that they
do not cloud it over with some petty question as if ruffled by a
breeze. It is [thought] characteristic of the most helpless
stupidity, not to find something which you may make obscure by
most intricate measures and involve in very hard and rigid
conditions, which you may twist and twist again. For you may
simply say: "Write to me,"--here comes a question, if not from
Grammar then from Logic, if not from Logic then from
Physics,--"What motions are made in writing?" Or, from
Metaphysics, "Is it substance or quality?"
And these boys are hearing the first rudiments of Logic who were
only yesterday, or the day before, admitted to the school. So
they are to be trained never to be silent, but vigorously to
assert whatever comes uppermost lest they may seem at any time to
have given in. Nor is one dispute a day enough, nor two, like a
meal. At lunch they dispute, after lunch they dispute, at dinner
they dispute, after dinner they dispute. Do they do these things
to learn, or to cook a new dish? They dispute at home, they
dispute away from home. At a banquet, in the bath, in the
tepidarium, at church, in the city, in the fields, in public, in
private, in all places and at all times they dispute.