Readings in the History of Education Part 13

And so the scholars strove to take down all his talks, word for 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 surpa.s.sing 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 t.i.tle [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 t.i.tle); 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 pa.s.sage), 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 Repet.i.tion, I shall reserve it for an evening Repet.i.tion.[58]

The varied statement and restatement of the pa.s.sage, 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 a.s.signed _de novo_, according to the regulations below. And we decree, as to the close observance by them of the pa.s.sages, 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 p.r.o.nounce 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 repet.i.tion; 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 repet.i.tion 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 ill.u.s.trates 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 n.o.bler element than Earth; hence it deserves a n.o.bler, 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 G.o.d 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 sh.o.r.es are higher than the edges of the sea, and since the sh.o.r.es 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.