Chapter XXI: Book V: Summary Review of the Preceding Books

The fifth book, reviewing all these items in the same order, constitutes a summary manual, a _summa dictaminis_.

“Since I know that some will find the multiplicity of the
preceding burdensome, let the multiplicity be reduced in this
book to paucity in consideration for the unlettered (_rudium_).
Thus, as for those who rejoice in abundance I have displayed
letters both various and adequate, so for the many of weaker
stomach who wish to be fed on light diet I ought to set forth
food at once moderate and proper (_honestum_).” The author then
proceeds seriatim with a digest.

This book by itself provides about the same quantity of precept as suffices in other manuals to introduce collections of specimens; but it is exceptionally systematic.[33]

C. _CURSUS_

In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the practise of _cursus_ became more technical, and the use of the term more special. The Chancellor appointed by Pope Urban II was John of Gaetà (Giovanni Gaetano), who had learned _dictamen_ from Alberic of Monte Cassino,[34] and who was specifically commissioned to “reform the style of ancient grace and elegance in the Apostolic See” and to “restore the Leonine rhythm with its lucid rapidity.”[35] The dominant chancery style, thus reformed, embodied the principle of rhythmical close in three types of prose cadence:

(1) _cursus planus_, víncla perfrégit;
(2) _cursus tardus_, víncla perfrégerat;
(3) _cursus velox_, vínculum frègerámus.[36]

The first sentence of a mandate of Innocent III shows all three.

Inter omnes munitiónes et cástra (_planus_)
quæ Romana ténet ecclésia (_tardus_)
munitionem et castrum Montis Fiasconis non solum inténdit sed
cúpit (_planus_)
et providéntius gùbernári (_velox_)
et studiósius cùstodíri (_velox_).[37]

The indignant closing paragraph of Dante’s letter to the Florentines begins:

O miserrima Fæsulanórum propágo (_planus_),
et iterum iam puníta barbáries (_tardus_)!
An parum timoris prælibáta incútiunt (_tardus_)?
Omnino vos tremere árbitror vìgilántes (_velox_),
Quamquam spem simuletis in facie verbóque mendáci (_planus_),
atque in somniis expergísci plerúmque (_planus_),
sive pavescentes infúsa præságia (_tardus_),
sive diurna consília rècoléntes (_velox_).[38]

The fixing of these three cadences in Roman use would of itself have given them a vogue beyond letter-writing. Moreover they were chosen not at random, but as typical fulfilments of rhythmical expectation. For they appear also, though not exclusively, in the collects of the liturgy and in the daily offices.[39] The collect for the fourth Sunday after the Epiphany has all three.

Deus qui nos in tantis perículis cònstitútos (_vel._) pro
humana scis fragilitate non pósse subsístere (_tard._) da nóbis
salútem (_plan._) méntis et córporis (_tard._) ut ea quæ pro
peccatis nostris patimur (not conformed) te adjuvánte vincámus
(_plan._).[40]

The longer measures of the collect composed in 1264 by St. Thomas Aquinas for Corpus Christi fall upon _velox_.

Deus, qui nobis sub sacramento mirabili passionis tuæ memóriam
rèliquísti, tribue, quæsumus, ita nos corporis et sanguinis tui
sacra mystéria vènerári ut redemptionis tuæ fructum in nobis
júgiter sèntiámus.

The English translation, following this cadence in the first measure and the third, departs in the second.

O God, who in this wonderful sacrament hast left us a memórial
of thy pássion, grant us, we beseech thee, so to venerate
the sacred mysteries of thy body and blood [not conformed]
that we may ever perceive within ourselves the frúit of thy
redémption.[41]

Hearing these cadences over and over, preachers of course used them often in Latin sermons. Thus the cadences that were obligatory in ceremonious letters, and habitual in other use, confirmed the conception and practise of Latin prose as rhythmical.

The rhythmical conception of prose, as the middle age knew well, had been dominant in classical antiquity. But medieval Latin prose, though its tradition came through the schools of Gaul, had had its own development. As in verse,[42] so in prose, the shift of rhythmical control to stress opened, not a breach, but a new artistic life. Medieval Latin ran as a living language with the movement of living speech. This was recognized even by the grammarians.[43] So the thirteenth-century manuals of _dictamen_ kept the terminology of ancient metric to describe accentual rhythms[44] because Latin to them was present as well as past, and seemed to reach indefinitely into the future. The future, by the time of the Renaissance, was seen to be with the vernacular for poetry. More slowly it was seen to be there also for prose. Meantime Latin poetic and rhetoric came to be studied by revival of antiquity. Revival translates Renaissance exactly. Italian scholars, and after them French and English, sought to turn Latin prose back to Cicero. Though they thus accomplished some most worthy ends, their theory and their practise interrupted Latin prose composition. Their contemptuous rejection of medieval rhythms hastened the processes by which Latin became a “dead” language. In the middle age it was living. A conspicuous evidence of its vitality, not merely a legal technic, but the formulation of a rhythmical habit, was the _cursus_.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Thurot, 91, 114 (note 2), 483 (note 1). Thurot finds Orléans more in touch with Italy than with its own part of France.

[2] Several of the collection by Pierre de Blois in PL 207 seem to be form-letters; and this is the main intention in the tenth-century _Collectio Sangallensis_, MHG, Legum Sectio V, Formulæ, pages 390-433. See Clerval, 114, on the letters of Fulbert in Bibl. Nat. MS 14167; 311-313, on Pierre de Blois, Étienne de Tournay, and John of Salisbury.

[3] Scribit Remensis archiepiscopus pro causa nostra domino Papæ, præcipiens litteras suas ad meum formari arbitrium. _Ep._ 286; PL, 199: 326.

[4] _Ep._ 223, page 389, in the collection of the letters of Gerbert, John of Salisbury, and Stephen of Tournay printed by Ruette, Paris, 1611. Both texts, omitting the _salutatio_, have the simple heading _Guillelmo Papiensi_. PL dates the letter 1167.

[5] Rockinger, I. 405-482.

[6] See Gaudenzi, who also edits it in _Bibliotheca iuridica_, I. It is printed in part by Rockinger, I. 121-174.

[7] Edited by Gaudenzi in _Bibliotheca iuridica_, II.

[8] Hahn, I. 279-385; composed mainly of specimens. For Guido Fava and Bene di Lucca, see Gaudenzi.

[9] Described from MS Bibl. Nat. fonds St. Victor, 906, and several times quoted, by Thurot, 414, 415, 483, 484, 485; mentioned by Clark. Manacorda, II. 266, citing Gaudenzi, says it is by Bene of Florence.

The _Candelabrum_ is digested below, section B. 1.

[10] The term was more special than _dictator_, which meant more generally a master in the art of prose; but Boncompagno, perhaps because of his legal bent, uses the two side by side in his _Rhetorica novissima_: “Dictator, prout hodie sumitur, est ille qui oratorum dicta legit et repetit, et repetita variat et componit.... Dictatoris officium est materias sibi exhibitas vel a se aliquando inventas congruo latino et appositione ornare: tales namque interdum notarii appellantur.” Bibl. iurid. II. 257.

[11] Under the title _Rhetorica ecclesiastica_ this is studied for the twelfth century by Emil Ott in Sitzungsberichte der K. Akad. der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 125 (1891-1892), Abhandl. 8: pages 1-118, Vienna, 1892; and in the series edited by Dr. Ludwig Wahrmund with the sub-title Quellen zur Geschichte des römischcanonistischen Processes im Mittelalter, Innsbruck, vol. I, 1906.

[12] E.g., the _privilegia_ of Urban III (1185) and of Gregory VIII (1187) in PL 202.

[13] Poole provides the best English introduction to this study.

[14] E.g., Alberic in Rockinger, I. 9. Ermini finds it used in the tenth century to mean _devoir_, or theme, “specimen eruditionis,” “lavoro scolastico,” _Poeti epici latini del secolo x_, 70, 109.

[15] E.g., _Candelabrum_, as also Conrad in Rockinger, I. 442. For the _poetriæ_, see above, Chapter VII. B.

[16] For _prosopopœia_ and _controversia_ see the index to ARP.

[17] See above, page 191.

[18] Made from the Plimpton MS.

[19] For the three styles, see the indexes to ARP and to this volume.

[20] Cursus is used in this general sense by the thirteenth-century grammar edited by Fierville (119), which also applies to compositio the phrase equabiliter perpolita (116). Rhet. ad Heren. has æqualiter perpolita.

For cursus in its special sense, see below, section C.

[21] _Poetria nova_ 1051-1060 is quoted here with some variations from Faral’s text. The _Candelabrum_ is therefore posterior to 1208-1213.

[22] Cf. Matthieu de Vendôme, II., section 13 seq.; Faral, 155 seq.

[23] “_Unius clausule integrum membrum._” _Clausula_ is consistently used to mean what we now call a sentence. It is so defined below (folio 6): “De clausulis quoque sequitur ut agamus, quoniam ex distinctionibus clausule compinguntur. Clausula igitur est plurium distinctionum continuatio ambitum perfectum sententie comprehendens.” The author adds that it is otherwise used _abusive_. His definition agrees with Fierville, 119.

[24] Alberic (Rockinger, I. 25) has the same threefold division, but calls [1] _suspensiva_, and says that it ends _acuto accentu_. Conrad (Rockinger, I. 443) follows Alberic’s terms, and quotes (444-445) Alexander de Villedieu’s _Doctrinale_, 2348-2358. The _Candelabrum_ grasps clearly the ancient conception of a period as a sentence rhythmically composed and rhythmically completed.

[25] The technical significances of this section cannot safely be suggested by translation. The available terms of modern English, if not misleading, would be at least prejudicial to an interesting inquiry. A considerable part of the original is printed by Thurot, 415: “De punctis ... et modo punctandi,” etc.

[26] “Quod paritatem sillabarum et similem consonantiam sine ulla temporis consideratione observat.” The example is the hymn _Ave, Maria, salvatoris_. There is added, by way of caveat, the different ancient definition of _rhythmus_; but the medieval use is vindicated “ad delectationem et quandam mollitiem; quoque ad dignitatem....” So Conrad: “Rithmicum observat tantummodo certum numerum sillabarum, distinguendo clausulas versiculorum in quadam finali concinnantia.” Rockinger, I. 419.

[27] Cf. Conrad’s list headed _Diversitas personarum_. Rockinger, I. 425 seq.

[28] The ancient term _auditor_ is kept, as well as the traditional three functions. The second function being cardinal in a letter, _benevolentiæ captatio_ in some manuals, e.g., Alberic’s (Rockinger, I. 18), is used as the heading, instead of _exordium_. In others, as, here, it is a subheading. The doctrine here is from _Rhet. ad Herennium_ I.

[29] Reference to the opponent is kept from ancient rhetoric, though often inapplicable in a letter. But see the opening of John of Salisbury’s letter at the beginning of this Chapter.

[30] The ancient counsel against pomp in the _exordium_, though repeated, seems to have been less regarded than the others.

[31] E.g., by Geoffroi de Vinsauf, _Poetria nova_, 126-133 (Faral, 201); Guido Fava (Rockinger, I. 185; Gaudenzi, 129).

[32] The term is said to be more inclusive. “Narrationum genera tria sunt: oratorium, digressorium, et poeticum.” _Digressorium_ probably refers to the _digressio_ for which a place in the speech was provided by ancient rhetoric after the division (see ARP, 65). _Poeticum_ is of course divided into _historia_, _fabula_, _argumentum_ (for which see the index). The author makes no use of this, or of the whole division, which indeed is inapplicable to a letter; but it seems to have troubled him, as it troubled the _poetriæ_ (see above, page 193). Quintilian’s clear distinction seems to have escaped them: “Et historiæ, quæ currere debet ac ferri, minus convenissent insistentes clausulæ,” etc., IX. iv.

[33] At this point the author turns from Roman use to French, beginning