Disputations

This article examines how St. Thomas Aquinas developed rich theological insights to be used ultimately in his preaching ministry as a thirteenth century magister in sacra pagina. His exegetical approach deploys a careful divisio textus to arrive at the
literal meaning and doctrinal sense of the scriptural passage. The ambiguities of difficult passages are examined dialectically by short logical disputations that uncover the riches of the text. The fruits of these labors were then brought together in the master’s university sermon for the conversion and perfection of souls. Thus, the three duties of the medieval master codified in the statutes of the University of Paris – namely, to teach, to dispute, and to preach – contextualize the task of the medieval theologian, rooting him in the revealed Word of God and requiring him to care for the souls of his students and colleagues in his preaching by announcing and explaining the sense and practical import of sacra doctrina. This article also examines the proximate historical source for these three duties as the practice of lectio divina was brought out of the monasteries and into the public sphere of the academies in the great cities of medieval Europe. There is much we could learn today from recovering this robustly ecclesial and pastoral way of pursuing biblical theology.

Artykuł analizuje, w jaki sposób bogaty dorobek teologiczny św. Tomasza
z Akwinu jest wykorzystywany w jego praktyce kaznodziejskiej jako XIII-wiecznego
“magister in sacra pagina”. Jego egzegetyczne podejście wyraża się w ostrożnym “divisio textus”, aby dotrzeć do dosłownego i doktrynalnego sensu danego tekstu biblijnego.  Ambiwalentne interpretacje trudnych tekstów są dialektycznie analizowane za pomocą krótkich, logicznych dysput odkrywających bogactwo tekstu. Owoce tej pracy były niejako zbierane w kazaniu średniowiecznego mistrza ukierunkowanym na nawrócenie i doskonalenie dusz. Trzy obowiązki średniowiecznego mistrza wyrażone w statutach Uniwersytetu Paryskiego – nauczanie, prowadzenie dysput oraz kaznodziejstwo – wskazują na zadania średniowiecznego teologa, zakorzeniając go w objawionym Słowie Boga i wymagając od niego troski o dusze swoich studentów i kolegów wyrażane w głoszenie sensu i praktycznych implikacji sacra doctrina. W artykule przeanalizowano także zródła historyczne dotyczące wspomnianych trzech obowiązków takie jak “lectio divina” przeprowadzana poza klasztorami, w publicznej sferze akademii w największych miastach Europy. Ten model eklezjalnej i pastoralnie ukierunkowanej teologii biblijnej może stanowić również wzór dla współczesnej jej kontynuatorki.

This article discusses the significance of the writing and transmission of two accounts recording disputations (munāẓarāt) that took place in 909 CE, the year of the Fatimid revolution, in Qayrawān (modern Tunisia). These debates, in which local scholars of all politico-religious factions participated, were organized by the agents of the Fatimid daʿwa as part of their attempt to establish a Shīʿī caliphate. But the accounts themselves, written at different times and for different motives, were triggered by personal trauma and responded to broader political and religious issues, which helps to explain their inclusion in later narratives of defiance and hagiography. The first was authored by a local Mālikī debater, Saʿīd b. al-Ḥaddād, and immediately went into circulation. It then became part of the North African biographical tradition and was regularly quoted as a brilliant (if paradoxical) defence of Mālikī belief against “heretics and tyrants.” A different account of these disputations was written nearly forty years later by Ibn al-Haytham, a local Fatimid dāʿī. Unlike that of Ibn al- Ḥaddād, Ibn al- Haytham’s memoir, entitled Kitāb al-Munāẓarāt, was written to commemorate an older generation of dāʿīs, especially the revolutionary brothers Abū- l- ʿAbbās and Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Shīʿī, both of whom had been executed in 911. Also unlike the previous record, this one circulated privately and only became known to modern scholars in the 1990s. Link: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/medieval-sicily-alandalus-and-the-maghrib/writing-of-munazarat-in-times-of-turmoil-disputations-infatimid-ifriqiya/D7ED2BC0D8768FA39E6D0A7B3D34EFA2

This chapter explores the tradition of scholastic disputation in the majority of Protestant universities in Germany during the seventeenth century. Disputations reflect the general intellectual atmosphere and the learned consensus, and shed light into the content of the teaching that educated elites received at the universities, thus giving an accurate idea about contemporary mentalities. They were made up of short texts and were designated variously as exercitium, disputatio, or dissertation. Early modern disputations differed significantly from today’s university dissertations: most of these texts were not written for promotion or for obtaining an academic degree (pro gradu) and a greater part of these disputations were in fact written by professors or masters who acted as presider (praeses). The task of the respondent (respondens) was to defend the proposed theses. Professors also re-used their material—this means the disputations often represent a compilation of previous ideas and texts.

The article discusses the statutes, lectio lists and disputations of the Academia Gustaviana (1632–1656) in Tartu, Estonia. It is evident that academic life at the beginning of the Academia Gustaviana period was heavily influenced by Ramist thought, which was then clearly visible in the statutes. The Ramist influence persisted during the better part of the period and continued up to the late 1640s, when the rest of the German cultural space had already regarded Ramism as problematic and even harmful. One reason for this was undoubtedly the respect for the main author of the constitutions and the first chancellor of the university Johan Skytte (1577–1645), who was educated in a Ramist environment and was suspicious of scholastic philosophy. Skytte stressed the dangers of “papist” metaphysical speculation in the statutes for the Uppsala university
(which the university in Tartu adopted with some alterations) and in many of his speeches. He exhorted professors to give only practical and clear instructions to the students. In the context of Academia Gustaviana, the fact that a Jesuit seminary and gymnasium had been previously operating in Tartu gave an additional reason to be especially wary of possible Catholic influences. It is thus seen in the constitutions that no professor was appointed for theoretical philosophy, and metaphysics is only mentioned in a disparaging manner. In connection with this, there is no explicit mention of metaphysics in lectio lists and in the titles of disputations; metaphysical topics are also generally avoided, and when discussed, they are not categorised under metaphysics in the bodies of the disputations. In addition, in Academia Gustaviana, it appears that a fairly well-known scheme applied in which smaller and outlying universities tended to prefer Ramist logic and rhetoric because the simplified curriculum permitted one to move quickly to teaching higher disciplines. This trend is also confirmed both by the list of professors in the statutes and the nature of the teaching guidance materials, in which theoretical subjects are avoided and great attention is paid to practical disciplines. Practicality and usefulness for the state are stressed throughout the statutes.

From 1640 onwards (and especially after the death of Johan Skytte), Ramism in the disputations of Tartu starts to play an increasingly smaller role and the first critical remarks about Ramism also appear. At the same time, a rise in interest in Peripatetic philosophy is visible, and the first positive mentions of metaphysics in the disputations appear. However, until the end of the period no disputation using metaphysics as a subject in the heading of the disputation was found. This may also be connected to the fact that in Academia Gustaviana there was no professor of theoretical philosophy (in accordance with 1632 statutes) whose area would have covered this topic.

Early modern disputation was a phenomenon in its own right, involving both performative and textual aspects. The texts of the disputations were different from modern academic dissertations and articles, while at the same time serving as a kind of model for both. For this reason, they must also be approached as a specific genre that no longer exists today.
Disputations are intrinsically linked to the early modern university and its traditions: from the 16th to 18th century, the disputation was the main academic product of universities. It was the basis on which degrees were awarded and jobs were applied for. Changes in universities at the end of the eighteenth century led to the introduction of the requirement of an independently written monograph as a prerequisite for the award of a degree, and this development was accompanied by a gradual disappearance of exercise disputation in the 19th century.
Early modern disputations contain a wealth of information for study: they document the attractiveness and innovation potential of universities, the academic developments of the various faculties, the careers of participants, personal relationships, the reputation of professors and, of course, changes within individual disciplines. Often, the printed theses allow conclusions to be drawn about the educational policies and the theological-philosophical background of the schools concerned. The arguments put forward in the disputations and the choice of authorities cited make it possible to place the participants in the context of certain methodological trends or to associate them with leading figures in the discipline. The content of the disputations conveys the debates that took place at a particular place and time, informs about the basic knowledge that students were taught, and gives an explanation of how the hot topics of the time were understood. From the vast number of disputations, which has hitherto been an obstacle to research, digitization, distant reading and other statistical methods can glean very useful information. For example, it is possible to determine with great precision when certain topics were discussed in certain universities or how ideas moved between universities, while gratulations and other paratexts enable one to map academic circles of communication, identify authorities, spot central issues of controversy in different time periods, etc. More in-depth study of the disputations has only gained momentum in the last couple of decades, and there are many unexplored themes and problems. Disputations are also one of the main sources for the intellectual history of the Estonian early modern period, and our philosophical, medical, legal and theological disputations will provide ample material for further research.

A little work of hungarology with Jurisprudential accents from the first half of the 17 th Century.
Wilhelm Artner was the second person from Sopron, who became a jurist doctor in the Early Modern Age and applied his professional knowledge for the benefit of his city and Lutheran church. The present paper gives an outlook of his studies in Tubingen by introducing one of his works created there in detail. First, a draft is presented of the education and professors in the Law Faculty of Tubingen in the first third of the 17th century. Second, the circumstances of the creation and content of the disputation titled " De Regno Hungariae ejusque jure " – which was created with the cooperation of Professor Christoph Besold and Artner – is emphasized. The paper tries to eliminate the erroneous and stereotypical evaluations that have been linked with it throughout the past centuries and now the disputation is viewed as one of the first works of Hungarology.

Robert Brandom holds that what we mean is best understood in terms of what inferences we are prepared to defend, and that such a defence is best understood in terms of rule-governed social interactions. This manages to explain quite a lot. However, for those who think that there is more to making correct/incorrect inferences than obeying/breaking accepted rules, Brandom’s account fails to adequately capture what it means to reason properly. Thus, in an effort to sketch an alternative that does not rely primarily on peer pressure, I draw on the work of C. S. Peirce. Peirce argued that, when we reason, we manipulate abstract diagrams in order to observe what results. Since some manipulations are barred by the self-same nature of the diagrams, I try to show that this qualitative incompatibility, which I dub “contrapiction,” is a good (non-social) reason to regard some reasoning as bad.

The Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, a textbook in systematic theology, originated as a series of disputations held in Leiden University between 1620-1624. In presiding over the cycle of dis­putations, the Leiden professors Johannes Polyander, Andreas Rivetus, Antonius Walaeus and Antonius Thysius continued a tradition from before the Synod of Dort. This article discusses the original academic setting of the disputations, shows that the cycle and its four repetitions replaced a similar cycle with repetitions that started in 1596 under Franciscus Junius Sr., and that the order of subjects was agreed on beforehand. The professors composed the theses and were responsible for the final text of the Synopsis.