GENERAL OUTLINE OF METHOD 17 



way you will see better where is the heart or kernel of the question, the exact 

 point in dispute ; you will fix your attention on it, and you will retain a firmer 

 conviction of what you have seen to stand successfully the shock of the de 

 bate.&quot; l 



Open the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, that monumental synthesis 

 of mediaeval wisdom &quot; ad eruditionem incipientium&quot; .&quot; At the beginning of 

 each Question (Quaestio) or Sub-question (Articulus] will be found a resume&quot; 

 of all the arguments, from reason and authority, that can be brought against 

 the intended solution. They are introduced by the familiar &quot; Videtur quod 

 non . . . &amp;gt;} . Next comes the doctrinal affirmation of the thesis or solution, 

 introduced by the words &quot; Sed contra . . .,&quot; and usually illustrated rather 

 than proved by some quotation from Scripture or from the Fathers. Then 

 comes the body of the article (Corpus Articuli), introduced by the phrase 

 &quot; Respondeo dicendum quod . . ., &quot; and containing the principle on which the 

 solution is based, together with its main proofs in the usual syllogistic form. 

 Finally, we have the further application of this same principle to the solution 

 of each of the various difficulties proposed against the thesis at the commence 

 ment : &quot; Ad primum dicendum quod . . . &quot; &quot; Ad secundum . . . ,&quot; etc. 



At the public debates that were held in the mediaeval universities at certain 

 fixed intervals during the year, usually before Christmas and Easter (&quot;Zto- 

 putationes Quodlibetales&quot; as they were called), the procedure was slightly 

 different. Any auditor might raise a question and indicate in a general way 

 the arguments in favour of the solution that had his preference. The &quot; re- 

 spondens&quot; i.e. the candidate for degrees, or his master, formulated their view, 

 and based it on some fundamental argument. This position was at once 

 attacked by the objector, and so the debate was opened. On the morrow, or 

 one of the following days, the master repeated, arranged, and &quot; determined,&quot; 

 or settled definitively, the various questions discussed. These &quot; Determina- 

 tiones &quot; have come down to us in the copious volumes of mediaeval philosophy 

 and theology known as &quot; Quodlibeta &quot;. :i 



The method of carrying on academic debates in Scholastic philosophy and 

 theology, still in use in schools, colleges, and universities, where these subjects 

 are taught, is the same in principle as the above, if somewhat different in de 

 tail. The exercise is strictly syllogistic, and it undoubtedly gives the student 



1 Metaphysics iii., i ; Nicomachaean Ethics, vii., i. Here is the comment of 

 St. Thomas : &quot; Postis his quae videntur probabilia circa praedicta, prius inducamus 

 dubitationes, et sic ostendemus omnia quae sunt maxime probabilia circa praedicta 

 . . . quia si in materia aliqua dissolvantur difficultates et relinquuntur ut vera ilia 

 quae sunt probabilia, sufficienter est determinatum.&quot; loc. cit., lect. i. 



2 &quot; Quia catholicae veritatis doctor non solum provectos debet instruere, sed ad 

 eum pertinet etiam incipientes erudire, propositum nostrae intentionis in hoc opere 

 est ea quae ad Christianam religionem pertinent, eo modo tradere, secundum quod 

 congruit ad eruditionem incipientium.&quot; A few brief sentences next tell us why he 

 undertook the work : to rid theology of many useless questions, and to give an orderly 

 exposition of it for the benefit ol learners; and in what spirit: &quot;cum confidentia 

 divini auxilii.&quot; Those few simple sentences form the whole preface or prologue to 

 one of the greatest works that human genius has ever produced. 



3 Cf. DE WULF, History of Medieval Philosophy, p. 258, note from Mandonnet s 

 Siger de Brabant, etc. 



VOL. II. 2 



