The disputatio
1150 – 1650 The classic form flourished in the thirteenth-century universities
A fixed public procedure: the question, the objections stated at full strength, the authority against them, the master's answer, then a reply to every objection in turn.
- Active
- 1150 – 1650
- Where
- Paris and Oxford
- Also
- disputatio
- Status
- Historical
- Tradition
- Classical procedures
What it is
The disputatio is a formal procedure with a fixed shape, conducted in public and in front of students. A question admitting of a yes or no is posed. Objections to the master's view are stated first and at their strongest. A contrary authority is cited. The master then gives his determination, and finally answers each objection individually.
The order is the interesting part. The opponent speaks first and is not summarised but set out properly, and the master is not finished until every objection has been separately met.
How it works
Pose the question. State the objections — the videtur quod, what it seems. Cite the authority on the other side — the sed contra. Give the determination — the respondeo. Answer each objection in turn — the ad primum, ad secundum, and so on.
The final stage is what enforces the discipline. A determination that answers the question in general but cannot dispose of objection four has not finished, and the structure makes the gap visible on the page.
The moves, in order
- Pose a question admitting of yes or no
- State the objections at full strength
- Cite the authority on the contrary side
- Give the determination and its reasons
- Answer each objection separately, in the order stated
The procedure
Proposition The body corporate may charge the cost of the retaining wall to lot 4 alone.
- It seems that it may not: first, because the wall is on common property, and common property is maintained from common funds; second, because no owner may be singled out for a structural cost; third, because the wall predates lot 4's ownership.
- On the contrary, the by-laws provide that where a structure serves one lot exclusively, its maintenance is that lot's cost.
- The determination: the wall retains the excavation for lot 4's driveway and serves no other lot, so the by-law applies and the cost falls to lot 4.
- To the first: the wall is on common property, but the by-law attaches cost to exclusive service, not to location.
- To the second: the prohibition is on singling out an owner arbitrarily, and this is not arbitrary but follows the stated rule.
- To the third: the obligation runs with the lot rather than with the person, so the date of purchase is irrelevant.
Therefore The cost falls to lot 4, and every objection has been separately answered rather than swept aside by the determination.
Any modern tribunal decision has this shape. The medieval innovation was making it compulsory and making the objections come first.
What it is good for
Any decision that must be seen to have considered the other side. Its lasting descendants are judicial reasons, formal committee determinations and the structure of a good academic paper.
Where it fails
The form can be satisfied without the substance. Once the shape becomes compulsory, objections can be selected for how easily they can be answered, and the appearance of having faced the strongest case is precisely what the structure confers whether or not it is deserved.
It is also slow and requires a determiner. It works where somebody has the standing to settle the matter, and it has nothing to offer where nobody does.
Common misconceptions
That scholastic disputation was empty verbal quibbling. The angels-on-a-pinhead caricature is a later invention; the actual procedure is one of the most demanding argumentative formats ever devised, and its requirement to state the opposition first has never been improved on.
Where it came from
Emerged in the twelfth-century cathedral schools out of the practice of glossing contradictory authorities, and was formalised in the thirteenth-century universities as a public academic exercise.
What became of it
Displaced by the essay and the treatise from the seventeenth century, having been thoroughly discredited by humanists who mostly attacked a caricature of it.
Lasting influence
The Summa Theologiae is written entirely in this form, and every law report and tribunal decision written since is its descendant.
Why it still matters
The form survives everywhere decisions must be justified, without the name.
Put another way
A hearing where the other side goes first and every point they made must be answered before you may stand down.
Texts
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae
Every article follows the form exactly. Open at any page and the structure is visible before a word is read.
Where to start
Read a single article of the Summa — any one — and note that the objections are better argued than most published objections today.
The surprising bit
The medieval requirement to state your opponent's case at its strongest before answering it is stricter than anything modern academic writing enforces.
In their own words
It seems that... On the contrary... I answer that...
Who held it
the Parisian masters
Connections
- Relies on
- Platonic dialectic
- Influenced
- The principle of charity
- Parallel to
- Pūrvapakṣa and siddhānta
The verdict
The most rigorous format for public argument ever institutionalised, discarded for reasons that were largely a caricature of it.