Chapter 10

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.

Courtesans in charge of a panderer do not wrangle so many times, or gladiators in charge of a trainer do not fight so many times for a prize as these do under their teacher of philosophy. The populace, not self-restrained and serious, but fickle, barbarous, pugnacious, is wonderfully tickled with all this as with a mock battle. So there are very many exceedingly ignorant men, utterly without knowledge of literature in any form, who take more pleasure in this form of show than in all else; and the more easily to win the fight, they employ a quick and prompt mode of fighting and deliver a blow every second, as it were, in order the more speedily to use up their foe. They neither assail their adversary with uninterrupted argument nor can they endure prolonged talk from him. If by way of explaining himself he should begin to enlarge, they raise the cry: "To the point! To the point! Answer categorically!" Showing how restless and flippant _their_ minds are who cannot stand a few words....

To such a degree did they go that instead of a settlement based on the strongest arguments, such as drove them into their absurdities, they considered it sufficient to say: "I admit it, for it follows from my own conclusion," and the next step is: "I deny it. Prove it. I will defend it appropriately." For he who "defends appropriately" (in their own words), no matter by what incongruous admissions and concessions, is held to be a learned man and best adapted to disputation, that is, to the apex of all knowledge.

(c) _The Examination_

The examination, as an exercise leading to a degree, is one phase of modern educational practice which comes from mediaeval universities. The system of examinations grew up slowly. Generalization is difficult owing to the differences in practice in various universities, but broadly speaking the student who took a Master's or Doctor's degree in any Faculty passed through the three stages of Bachelor, Licentiate, and Doctor, and at each stage underwent some form of examination. The examination for the License (to teach anywhere) seems to have been the most formidable of the three; that for the Doctorate being mainly ceremonial. In general, the examination tested the candidate's knowledge of the books prescribed, and his power of public debate.

The statutes of Bourges (c. 1468-1480) thus describe the requirements and the manner of procedure of examinations for the License in Arts:

[In preparation for the A.B. degree, which preceded the License, the candidate had heard lectures on (1) The Isagoge (Introduction) of Porphyry to the Categories of Aristotle, (2) the following works of Aristotle: (a) Categories; (b) Peri Hermeneias (On Interpretation), the first (?) two books and a part of the fourth; (c) Topics, first book; (d) Physics, first three books.]

Likewise we have decreed that before any one comes to the grade of License he must have heard four other books of Physics, three books "On the Heavens," two of "On Generation," the first three of "On Meteors," three "On the Soul," "On the Memory," "On the Length and Brevity of Life," with the first six books of "Metaphysics" and the first six on "Ethics" with a part of Euclid, and with the book "On the Sphere" [by John Sacrobosco].

Likewise we have decreed that candidates must respond twice openly and in public, and there may be five at most in one day and in the same debate; yet four will be sufficient. And when they respond they must pay, each his own chairman, a scudo of gold.

Likewise we have determined that, when this has been done, the Faculty shall appoint four Masters who have already been Masters for three years and who do not have [the candidates] that year as pupils under their own special direction; and they shall test the sufficiency of all the candidates. And the said committee shall take oath that they will accept those who are eligible and will reject those who are ineligible.

Likewise we have decreed that, when this has been done, on the report of said committee, over their seals manual faithfully transmitted, the Chancellor shall arrange the candidates in the order assigned to them by said committee, always putting the better men and those who are eligible ahead of the others, in order that the opportunity of studying well may be given to the students and that no one may suffer harm from his position.

Likewise we have decreed that before proceeding to license the candidates themselves, the assembled Faculty of Arts shall ordain four Masters, other than the first, who shall examine in assigned groups the said candidates in their own persons. And if they do not find them to be such as the first examiners reported that they found them, they shall report to the Faculty, pointing out the deficiency that the Faculty may have knowledge of the mistake of the first committee. If it finds that they made a mistake it shall have authority to correct their errors by changing the positions [of the names on the list] and by rejecting them entirely if they seem ineligible.

Likewise we have decreed that when their approval or disapproval has been settled by the said second examiners, they shall place their candidates according to proper order in one list sealed with their own seals, and shall deliver it, under enclosure, to the Chancellor, and it shall not be lawful for him to change the order but he shall license them in the order set down in the list.[62]

The process of taking the Licentiate and the Doctorate in Laws at Bologna, in vogue at the end of the thirteenth century and later, is described at great length in the Statutes of 1432. The examination consisted of two parts; the first private, the second public. The first led to a License, which was, however, a license merely to proceed to the public examination. The Statute concerning the private examination is summarized by Rashdall:

The private Examination was the real test of competence, the so-called public Examination being in practice a mere ceremony. Before admission to each of these tests the candidate was presented by the Consiliarius of his Nation to the Rector for permission to enter it, and swore that he had complied with all the statutable conditions, that he would give no more than the statutable fees or entertainments to the Rector himself, the Doctor or his fellow-students, and that he would obey the Rector. Within a period of eight days before the Examination the candidate was presented by "his own" Doctor or by some other Doctor or by two Doctors to the Archdeacon, the presenting Doctor being required to have satisfied himself by private examination of his presentee's fitness. Early on the morning of the examination, after attending a Mass of the Holy Ghost, the candidate appeared before the assembled College and was assigned by one of the Doctors present two passages (puncta) in the Civil or Canon Law as the case might be. He then retired to his house to study the passages, in doing which it would appear that he had the assistance of the presenting Doctor. Later in the day the Doctors were summoned to the Cathedral or some other public building by the Archdeacon, who presided over but took no active part in the ensuing examination. The candidate was then introduced to the Archdeacon and Doctors by the presenting Doctor or Promoter as he was styled. The Prior of the College then administered a number of oaths in which the candidate promised respect to that body and solemnly renounced all the rights of which the College had succeeded in robbing all Doctors not included in its ranks. The candidate then gave a lecture or exposition of the two prepared passages; after which he was examined upon them by two of the Doctors appointed by the College. Other Doctors might ask supplementary questions of Law (which they were required to swear that they had not previously communicated to the candidate) arising more indirectly out of the passages selected, or might suggest objections to the answers. With a tender regard for the feelings of their comrades at this "rigorous and tremendous Examination" (as they style it) the students by their Statutes required the Examiner to treat the examinee "as his own son." The Examination concluded, the votes of the Doctors present were taken by ballot and the candidate's fate determined by the majority, the decision being announced by the Archdeacon.[63]