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.