DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.63221#0065
THE SCHOLARS OF THE RENAISSANCE 39
the centre of the Renaissance. Between the hostile camps
stood the Court—generously inclining to the new order, but
in credulous fear of the old one.
To grasp the extent of the Sorbonne’s power we must
remember its hold over the University. It had in its hands
the education of youth. This education was of the most
pedantic. Methods were regarded as all-important, and for-
mulae were more thought of than the matter formulated.
The ordinary scholastic training given at the Universities
consisted in learning the seven “Liberal Arts”, after master-
ing which a student took his “'oath of scholarship”, received
his Scholar’s Diploma and was allowed to bold public philo-
sophical disputations with the Schoolmen. We need only
turn to Rabelais’ “Gargantua” if we wish to realise the
absurd hair-splittings which constituted these debates, and
the endless ingenuity and waste of mental force which went
to them. They were a kind of intellectual gymnastics which
induced activity of brain at the expense of thought, and all
the secondary qualities were given a first place. Nothing
was true but that which could be proved—and proved by
the Schoolmen’s methods—an opinion fatal to the interests
of Truth. Skill in proof became the one thing needful, and
the Sorbonne a Citadel of the densest casuistry. There
were various groups among the disputers. Some, however
fallacious, were at least grave in intention; others degenerated
into absurdity. There were the Nominalists and Realists-
or Aristotelians and Platonists; or the set that spent their
time discussing how many negations go to make an affirma-
tive; or the “ Cornifucians ”—the “makers of homed argu-
ments”—who sat and cavilled as to whether, if a donkey
the centre of the Renaissance. Between the hostile camps
stood the Court—generously inclining to the new order, but
in credulous fear of the old one.
To grasp the extent of the Sorbonne’s power we must
remember its hold over the University. It had in its hands
the education of youth. This education was of the most
pedantic. Methods were regarded as all-important, and for-
mulae were more thought of than the matter formulated.
The ordinary scholastic training given at the Universities
consisted in learning the seven “Liberal Arts”, after master-
ing which a student took his “'oath of scholarship”, received
his Scholar’s Diploma and was allowed to bold public philo-
sophical disputations with the Schoolmen. We need only
turn to Rabelais’ “Gargantua” if we wish to realise the
absurd hair-splittings which constituted these debates, and
the endless ingenuity and waste of mental force which went
to them. They were a kind of intellectual gymnastics which
induced activity of brain at the expense of thought, and all
the secondary qualities were given a first place. Nothing
was true but that which could be proved—and proved by
the Schoolmen’s methods—an opinion fatal to the interests
of Truth. Skill in proof became the one thing needful, and
the Sorbonne a Citadel of the densest casuistry. There
were various groups among the disputers. Some, however
fallacious, were at least grave in intention; others degenerated
into absurdity. There were the Nominalists and Realists-
or Aristotelians and Platonists; or the set that spent their
time discussing how many negations go to make an affirma-
tive; or the “ Cornifucians ”—the “makers of homed argu-
ments”—who sat and cavilled as to whether, if a donkey