Part 19

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.

(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.