william t. costello, sj - The School of Literature, Communication, and ...

THE FRAMEWORK OF SCHOLASTICISM 1Q
a tremendous
perhaps the human archetype is a huge giant,
figure in some remote region of the earth who lifts his head higher
than the star-bearer, Atlas, to
terrify the 45
gods." The similarity
between Milton and our student in ideas and reference may be
only coincidental, but to find Neoplatonism (still not too common),
expressed in better than average verse, offers a fascinating
possibility.
But to return to the disputation itself. When the verses, such
as we have just described, have been distributed and the answerer
has delivered his brief introductory oration, ". . . the Father doth
usually confute it, but 8c very briefly: then hee disputeth upon
his sonne, who after he hath repeated his first syllogisme, doth
endeavor to answer the objections the father used against it." 46
This is still only preliminary skirmishing, the purpose being to
put the answerer at ease and heighten the battle to follow.
anticipation of the
In the only transcript of a complete Cambridge disputation as
yet to come to light, one in which a certain Mr. Boyes was defendant
late in the reign of Elizabeth, 47 we possess the actual lines
of the actors. The importance of the manuscript cannot be overstressed,
since many references in Esquire Bedell Buck's account
are clarified by turning to it, where the words and technical ma-
neuverings of the participants
at last come to life.
In the first half of the disputation Mr. Boyes defends the thesis
that threat of is punishment a sufficient deterrent of crime (Sufficit
in rebus humanis scire locum esse in carcere). The Father,
first that in the
addressing his son as "doctissime Bois/' apologizes
brief half-hour allotted to this first question (in hoc brevi semihorae
curricula quo circumscribimur) no one can expect him to
enter into any profound refutation of so learned a son's position.
However, he does have one or two objections to the thesis which
he wishes the learned Bois to dispose of. These objections he presents
in strict syllogistic form, and, after Boyes's cautious and inconclusive
answers, the moderator calls the first opponent. The
opponent gives a rather long, but excellent, Latin speech, followed
by a series of syllogisms, to which Boyes replies one by one.
The second opponent is then called up by the moderator, who in
his turn engages in a long syllogistic scuffle as had the first
opponent.
Before going through a point-by-point description of one of
the lines of syllogisms in the Boyes disputation, we must digress
briefly to gloss the chief terms and tactics used in these exchanges,