QUODLIBETS. - The quodlibeta, as is evident from the surviving manuscripts, are literary redactions of those solemn disputations that were inaugurated as early as the 13th century by the Faculty of Theology of Paris, later imitated by the Faculties of Arts, Law and Medicine.
Alongside the ordinary disputations — dialectical exercises attended, under the direction of the master and within the school, by bachelors and students — there developed in the Faculty of Theology of Paris, around 1230, a more solemn exercise, under the responsibility of the master himself, which spread throughout the 13th century and the following one: the quodlibetal disputation, so called because it is de quolibet, a quolibet or ad voluntatem quolibet.
A quolibet: the initiative of the question and therefore of its choice was taken away from the master and depended on the assistants, the neighboring masters, the bachelors or other persons outside the school. Each one had the right to propose his topic, raise objections, argue against the master. De quolibet: any topic could rise to the honor of discussion, provided it had a bearing on the subject of teaching: theology, Holy Scripture, morals, pastoral care, canon law, sacramental theology, philosophy, cases of conscience, etc. The master could refuse a topic that seemed to him inopportune; in that case, however, those present expressed their displeasure. The session was therefore not without difficulty, both because of the number and because of the variety of the questions proposed. On average 20-25 were raised; sometimes it came to 34-39 (Trivet), to 44 (Peter de Trabibus), up to 53 (Peckham).
The master had under him one or more bachelors, who bore the first attack and gave a first reply to the objections (the statutes in fact established that no bachelor should present himself for the license unless he had taken part at least once in the de quolibet). It was the master, however, who, after the first dialectical skirmishes, presented the solutions, treated the question in depth, "determined" it and gave the definitive answer to the objections. A few days later, on the first day of the "legibilis" course, the master took up again in school, for the students alone, the questions debated in the previous session; he established a certain order, classifying as he thought best the questions proposed in disorder during the discussion, and gave them their definitive form. It was after this second session that the master drew up his text. It sometimes happens (a typical case in this regard, for example, is that of St. Thomas's Quodlibet XII) that nothing survives of the text but the "reportatio," made by a listener. In certain very rare cases, we have the notes taken during the discussion, which reveal the improvisation, the disconnectedness and the unfolding of the solemn disputation. The times reserved for the quodlibeta were two: at Christmas, in the 2nd and 3rd week of Advent; at Easter, around the 4th week of Lent. On the day of the quodlibetal discussions all courses were suspended, so that masters and bachelors could take part. It was therefore called disputatio solemnis, or disputatio communis. At the session in which Roger Marston took part there were perhaps no fewer than 25 masters of theology. No regulation obliged a master to undergo this trial. Some, in fact, never submitted to it; others, once or twice in their entire teaching career; there were those who exposed themselves more often, nor were there lacking others who underwent the trial at every session. Gerard of Abbeville, for example, had 20 quodlibeta to his credit; Henry of Ghent and Godfrey of Fontaines 15; John of Naples 15; St. Thomas 12; Nicholas Trivet 11; Raymond Rigaud 9.
The importance of such discussions is notable for the history of philosophical and theological thought, for the breadth and value of the documentation, as well as for the chronological clarifications they provide. Their very nature as quodlibetal disputations prevents them from being confined within too narrow a framework; an infinity of problems find their way into them; it is enough to cast a glance at the indexes of subjects to form an idea of this; all the burning topics, all the discussions in progress, all the newly proposed theses, sometimes even the very events of contemporary chronicle, come clearly to light; the publicity reserved for them spread knowledge of them in a singular manner. They provide, on the other hand, on such topics the genuine and profound thought of the master who defended his own point of view; he was not taken by surprise, even if the choice of questions was foreign to him (in certain cases, moreover, he could play a cunning game, having himself questioned in advance by interested persons on those questions on which he wished to pronounce), he had long studied the problems that might arise from them; it was thus possible to obtain, both on his personal doctrine and on the great currents of thought of the university milieu, first-rate clarifications. Such documents, furthermore, contrary to so many works of the Middle Ages, can be dated chronologically with great exactness, often to the year, more often to the month, sometimes to the day. Besides the clarifications provided by the manuscripts with the colophons they bear, the magisterial career of their author already narrows the field of hypotheses. Above all the frequent allusions both to contemporary events and to discussions known and dated chronologically "aliunde" or to other equally dated works help to give greater precision. It is enough that a single one of the 20 or 30 questions contained in a quodlibet can be dated, for all of them to be dated; all of them, in fact, were proposed and defended in one and the same session. Such disputations thus become most useful elements of information and dating for the history of philosophical and theological thought of the Middle Ages. The period of flourishing of this kind of literature runs from 1320 to 1320; the earlier quodlibeta are only attempts; the later ones undergo imprecise developments and abound in subtleties; at present more than 117 names of authors are known who took part in such disputations, with a total of 358 quodlibeta.
The example given at the University of Paris was followed elsewhere, at Oxford, undoubtedly at the suggestion of John Peckham, at Bologna, Toulouse, Cologne, a little everywhere. This scholastic exercise was soon adopted in the "Studia generalis" of the religious Orders, Dominicans, Franciscans, Hermits of St. Augustine, etc., with the appropriate adaptations. The other Faculties too, besides those of theology, had their solemn disputations; very well known is the regulation existing in the Faculties of Arts or in that of Medicine; less well known, on the other hand, is that of the Faculty of Law. To form a judgment on the evolution and degeneration of the quodlibet, one may usefully refer to the quodlibet upheld by John Hus in the Faculty of Arts at Prague in Jan. 1411, edited by Bohumil Ryba (Prague 1948).